“Speaking of Amway, what are YOUR thoughts on…?”

“A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle.”  — BEN FRANKLIN 

When a man endeavors to share his ideas about this business online and to make recommendations and offer critiques it might be easy to perceive him as having a “holier-than-thou,” if not a “know-it-all,” attitude.  As I try to engage topics that I believe are worth discussing in depth on this blog I understand that I might come across that way.  Lord knows, that is not my intent.  In fact, the reason this blog was named “Speaking of Amway, what are YOUR thoughts on…?” was that I was primarily interested in starting dialogue on topics that I thought were important, and then hearing your thoughts about them.  My hope was that we might find real solutions that would be meaningful to the company and to all IBOs.  That is still my hope.

I have no illusions that I have a direct line to God on any issue — except for my relationship with Him.  Beyond that my view of myself is much like the Japanese proverb, “You are not smarter than all of us.”  I certainly know that is true of me.  If I take someone to task about an issue it is important for everyone to understand that I also know that I have many issues in my life about which I also could be taken to task –places where I also often fall short — just ask my kids or friends!  (But don’t ask my grandkids.  They still think I’m terrific and I don’t want you to spoil things.)

G.K. Chesterton, the renowned English writer and Christian apologist, was once asked, “What’s wrong with the world?”  He responded, “I am.”  In the same sense I know that in my own way I am part of what is wrong with this business.  I need to sell more Quixtar products.  I need to register more IBOs and teach them how to sell Quixtar products and register IBOs.  I need to represent the business better.  Like Bridgett said in a comment recently, that would help the business a lot.  I agree with her. 

At the same time there are things in this business that I am uncomfortable with, things that I would like to see changed.  That is what I am trying to do with this blog — bring attention to some of those issues and ask for dialogue to see if anyone else feels or thinks the same way I do about them, and if not, please explain why you think differently. 

I was first introduced to this business in 1972 when I was 22 years old. (Yes, I am that old.)  At that time the Amway business had a grand vision and a moral depth that permeated everything it touched.  It was a special time.  There is still something stored in my olfactory lobes that makes me smile and remember the 70s when I smell SA-8.  (I know, that’s crazy, but it’’s true nonetheless.)  But somewhere, in the early 80s I believe, the distributors in the field and the company seemed to lose their way a little – and forgot what was really important.  I’m sure there were and are many reasons for that.  I can think of a few but I don’t want to get distracted with that discussion right now. 

I simply want to say those were great times.  Great times.  I think we can find our way to great times again if we return the foundational principles that shaped the business and the marketing plan and defined our relationships with each other during its glory years. 

I hope this blog can become one small part of that process and a source of creative energy toward that goal.

What are your thoughts on how Amway Global/Quixtar could recapture its glory years?

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Amway, Quixtar

IS THE BUSINESS WE PRESENT TO PROSPECTS THE ”REAL” ONE? 

“The secret to life is honesty and fair dealing.  If you can just fake that, you’ve got it made.” — GROUCHO MARX

Recently I worked through the content review process with Quixtar to gain approval for a Business Overview PowerPoint presentation.  I started the process in mid-December last year and my presentation was content review approved the first week of February.  All in all it took about ten weeks.  During that time I found Quixtar and its staff to be very thorough and helpful in the process despite being overwhelmed by an incredible workload due to so many groups going through the accreditation process to be eligible for QBI bonuses.  Trust me, even in something as simple as a business overview presentation, there are many seemingly innocuous places where you can misspeak and put the company at risk legally and otherwise.  It is to Quixtar’s credit that it is so thorough and careful, almost overly cautious.  I gained a great deal of respect for Quixtar’s desire to protect its reputation as I went through the process.  The company wanted to make sure that whatever was presented was true, didn’t make promises or guarantees of level of income, and didn’t imply things that shouldn’t have been implied.

I entered the content review process because I didn’t believe the plan being used at that time in my upline’s system was as forthcoming as I thought it should be about the positioning of the Quixtar business in relation to the tool system.  I don’t mean this as an affront to the system, I simply wasn’t personally comfortable with it.  I believed it was less than candid about how income was created in the business and somewhat exaggerated certain aspects of the business in my opinion.  One challenge as I saw it was that the system-developed business overviews normally presented the Quixtar business as the only source of income; and if — and that is a big if — the system income was mentioned at all, it was only in passing, and not spoken of as the significant source of income it is to most Emeralds and above.  In my mind, that was inappropriate at best, patently dishonest at worse. 

Often after the overview IBO leaders stand up in front of the prospects and IBOs in the audience and make statements about how “their wives have been able to be full-time moms, or how they have becoming financially free, or how they were able to buy the home of their dreams, etc. – all as a result of this business.”   

Excuse me?  Which business?  This business?

Let me ask those leaders, wouldn’t it be more truthful to say that your wife is a stay-at-home mom because you earn half of your income from Quixtar and the other half from your tools system income?  Diamonds, are you really financially free because of this business or because your tool system income outstrips your Quixtar income by two to one — or more?

These are important questions.  To present the business one way, and then later (often much later) to more fully disclose that IBO leaders earn substantial income from the tool system that often dwarfs their Quixtar income, borders on a bait-and-switch arrangement.  The judge’s decision in Orrin Woodward’s case stated that Orrin made between $1 and $10 million $10 million the year before.  I ask you, as an EDC, how much did he earn?  A million dollars?  I doubt it based on the company’s own figures at EDC level.  But let’s say it was $1 million.  That still means his system income was one to potentially nine nine times his Quixtar income. One to nine nine times!  So what business was he really in? 

And we wonder why some people are upset about the so-called “tool scam?!”  Or why the tool system critics see the tool business as a parasite that has to have a host to live?  Or why, when their tool system income is threatened in some way by either the company (such as with the recent business transformation and the accreditation process) or by governments (India, Phillipines, UK, and Russia come to mind), some system leaders are willing to abandon their Quixtar businesses and move to another “safer” haven (read ”network marketing company”) to continue their parasitic activities?

I’ve got news for you.  If their primary income was from the Quixtar business they would be bailing on their tool systems long before they would ever consider abandoning their Quixtar businesses.  This is just common sense.  So I ask you, what business are they really in? 

If, when we present the Quixtar business, we represent the Quixtar business as generating our lifestyle – yet that lifestyle and income is really from two business sources, one directly (Quixtar) and the other indirectly (tool income); and the latter often provides far greater income than the former  – have we not, by any reasonable measure, misrepresented ourselves and our business in total in order to initially recruit people into our business?

I believe so.  And that is inexcusable.

I believe there is a far better approach.  I will talk more about that tomorrow.

What are your thoughts about how earnings and lifestyle can misrepresent the business to prospects?

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Amway, Business Overview Presentations, Quixtar, tool systems

BEYOND THAT, HOW SHOULD THAT DEBATE BE SHAPED?

“If you only listen to one person, you become a clone.  If you listen to two people, you will be confused.  If you listen to ten people, you begin to develop some understanding.  But if you listen to a hundred people, you will find your own voice.”  – Dr. Timothy Keller, Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, and author of the highly acclaimed new book release The Reason for God:  Belief in an Age of Skepticism

“Come now, let us reason together.”  — Isaiah 1:18 

In the comment section of my March 25th post “Tool Support Systems:  What is their ‘raison d’etre?’”, a question was raised about individuals in the business whose consciences are troubled by certain aspects of the business.  Because of what those individuals perceive as a current lack of integrity in some business areas, they are unwilling to build the business at all in its present state.  The commentator honestly believed those IBOs should quit the business and move on to something else or quit the business and wait to come back until the business has changed to their satisfaction — rather than continue to devote hours and hours online discussing the business issues that trouble them. 

What do you think?

I think that anyone — anyone — who has been involved in or impacted by the business in any manner should be welcomed into the debate at any level they choose for as long as they choose.  You see, while they may not be an expert on every aspect of the business, they are experts on their personal experiences in or with the business.  So am I.  So are you.  It is really that simple.

Even if their hearts are incredibly hardened against the business, or a specific issue in the business, they should be free to speak their minds without any restriction other than appropriate online manners.  Truth is, their hardheartedness would provide a clear insight into the importance to them of their allegedly unfortunate experiences with the company or a line of sponsorship.  Let me add this caveat however, the commentator I mentioned earlier also stated that not all voices we hear online should be given equal credibility.  That is absolutely true — and the point where wisdom and discernment come into play.  Each online reader will have to decide for him- and herself whose voice has the greatest credibility and validity and thus deserves the most respect and consideration.

Please take a minute to scroll down and read comment #31 by “upnorth” under that aforementioned March 25th post.  Should his voice be part of the debate?  I sure hope so because the candor and obvious lack of some grand personal agenda spoke volumes to me.   

Ultimately I believe three perspectives should shape the debate about Quixtar and Amway Global: 

1. an openness to having everyone share their concerns and/or experiences with the business (no matter how misguided and inaccurate we might believe them to be), 
2. a desire to find real world answers to questions about how to make both companies what Steve Lieberman called “the business opportunity(ies) of choice in North America” (he was speaking of Quixtar, but I add Amway Global as well), 
3. and a passion for honesty and transparency in the search for those solutions.  

I am convinced that over the long-term those three perspectives will serve the goals of the companies and the IBOs the best.

What are your thoughts about shaping the debate about Quixtar and Amway Global?

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Amway, Debate, Quixtar, Timothy Keller, tool systems

HAVE TOOL SYSTEM LEADERS LOST SIGHT OF THE PRIMARY REASON PEOPLE ARE IN THIS BUSINESS?

Raison d’etre.  Websters translates this French phrase as “reason for being.”  Many people as they move through life reach a place where they begin to ask themselves what their “raison d’etre” is.  Sometimes its a personal trial or someone else’s personal tragedy that triggers the question.  Other times its just walking along the beach or in a blooming field and feeling a sense of “there must be something more.”  So they begin to ask ”Why am I here?” and “What is the purpose of my life?”  Often the search for answers to those kind of questions moves them into a study of philosophy and various religions and into pursuing other paths they hope in the end will lead to knowledge and wisdom.  They begin to understand that if they don’t know what their very reason for being is, they may very well end up wasting their life or settling for far less than life had to offer them.  And obviously, they want more than that for themselves and their families.

What is the “raison d’etre” of tool support systems? There seems to be much debate in Quixtar and Amway Global about the value of tool support systems – and the end of that debate still seems far off.  But can we come to some agreement about what the purpose of a tool support system should be, what its “raison d’etre” is? 

I believe we can if we can reach some agreement about what the primary reason is for people registering in Quixtar and Amway Global in the first place. Is their primary reason for joining Quixtar or Amway to make their marriages better?  Is it to help them get through times of trouble in their personal lives?  Is it to make them more effective in their business or in their current job?  Is it to make them more positive and upbeat about life?  Are those the primary reasons for people joining Quixtar and Amway?  I think most of us would quickly agree that those are secondary reasons for the vast majority of people (if they were even reasons at all when they registered).  I do agree however, that as people spend more time in the business those reasons may become more important, but they are not their primary reason for initially joining our business.  What is the primary reason people join our business?  I’m quite confident most IBOs would agree it is to try to earn additional income, perhaps even a full-time income, if they work hard, over time.  They want the business to become a profitable endeavor for them. 

Is that the primary purpose and focus of tool support systems today?  It may have been in the beginning, but I honestly don’t think it is anymore. 

In most fields of endeavor, we measure the success of that endeavor by how well it meets its primary goals and achieves its primary purpose.  If that endeavor succeeds somewhat in its secondary goals, but falls far short of its primary goals, I would think we would say it has failed in its reason for being.  And in most businesses, a year or two of those kind of results would soon lead to a change in business leadership and a search for a new way of doing things to accomplish the primary goals of the business. 

Profitability.  That is the primary goal most IBOs have in mind when they register in the business.  So IBO profitability should be the primary focus of tool support systems — and that means the profitability of all IBOs, not just the system leaders.  When increasing the profit to tool system leaders becomes the primary focus of the tool support systems, and not developing the profitability of downline IBOs, system leaders have clearly shirked their responsibilities and defaulted on their very reason for being. Yet many systems and even some IBOs defend the system by saying “my marriage was saved by what I learned on the tools” or “I received a promotion at work as a direct result of what I learned on the tools,” and other similar comments.  Yet they fail to realize that if they have not achieved their primary goal of profitability, the system has failed them in a very real sense.  And if the system has, at the same time, become such a financial drain that they are actually less profitable and financially solvent than they were before the business, then the system has completely failed in its primary reason for being.  As the saying goes, “When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall.”

This is not unlike a Christian church that is doing a great job with important issues like Divorce Recovery Workshops, MOPS programs, and feeding and clothing the hungry — but accomplishing very little in “seeking and saving the lost.”  If the primary purpose of a Christian church is to seek and save the lost, then to fail to do that while feeding the hungry, etc., is still to fail miserably, because it has not achieved its primary purpose.  The same is true of tool systems who fail to achieve their primary purpose.

Are there ways that tool systems could be far more effective in helping IBOs become more profitable in today’s technological age?  Without question.  They could offer online business building seminars and thus save all IBOs time and money.  (What is gasoline now?  Almost $4 a gallon?)  Some tool systems sell 10 CD sets (with 3 sets available) of what they consider their top audios for $70 each.  To buy all three sets it would cost an IBO $210.  Is there a more effective way to get that same audio material out that would make IBOs more profitable?  Sure.  I do it all the time with some men I lead at my church.  I put 30+ talks on one mp3 CD of a particular speaker we all enjoy.   Could tool systems do that?  No question.  Their cost would be minimal (duplicating mp3 CDs is incredibly inexpensive) and they could still sell them for $20 (four times their cost for most orders around 1,000 CDs) and make a solid profit.  Why don’t they?  That’s a great question. They could easily put all four monthly CEPs on one CD.  Why don’t they?  Like I said, a great question.  There are lots of things they could do, but don’t.  Why not?  I think the reason lies in tool leaders being more concerned about their profitability than the profitability of their IBO organizations.

It appears the initial “raison d’etre” for tool support systems is no longer the current “reason for being” for tool support systems.  Thus, I am beginning to think the time has come to reevaluate how tool systems could truly best support the profitability of all IBO businesses.

More on this topic tomorrow.

What are your thoughts on how tool support systems could enhance the profitability of IBO businesses today? 

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Amway Global, Quixtar, tool systems, Transparency

IS GENETIC TESTING GOING TO THE DOGS?

Well, “Yes”………and “No.” 

I own two dogs.  I acquired both through rescue groups and would recommend that avenue to anyone thinking about getting a dog or a cat.

I adopted my second dog “Cocoa,” a female, as a year old youngster in August of 2006 as a companion for my male, “Mocha.”  I was told when I got Cocoa that she was likely a border collie mix.  She has a kind of salt and pepper color, with a full, soft coat, and a face that tells everyone how happy she is 24/7.  She is Miss Personality Plus — a dog with a playful and mischievous side that runs like a gazelle.  She is the Energizer Bunny in a canine costume.  She can go on forever.  

I adopted Mocha as a 7 week old puppy a year earlier in May of 2005.  The picture above is of him at four months.  He has the color and markings of a chestnut thoroughbred with four white stockings, a fluffy white chest, and a long white plume at the end of his tail.  When I first got him I was told his mother was a chocolate lab or Boykin spaniel, but they didn’t know anything about his father.  They said they believed Mocha would grow up to be around 35 to 45 pounds.  Well today (96 pounds later!), I have a very big cuddly boy with the winter coat of a grizzly bear, the demeaner of King Mufasa (you know, from ”The Lion King”), and the heart of a teddy bear.  He’s just Mr. Lovable.  He attracts attention everywhere we go.  No matter where I take him everyone stops us and asks, “What kind of dog is that?  He’s beautiful!”  I always shrug and say, “He really is beautiful, isn’t he?  Sorry to say though, I really don’t know for sure what kind of dog he is.  I wish I did.”  And I really do wish I knew what his genetic heritage is.  And Cocoa’s too.

Fortunately, soon I will. 

High-tech DNA tests are now available that can tell a dog owner what his dog’s genetic heritage is back three generations. These new tests will give owners long baffled by the breed makeup of their mutts something to do besides what I normally do, shrug and speculate.  For $65 MetaMorphix subsidiary, MMI Genomics of Beltsville, Md. can test for about 115 breeds based on the DNA from a cotton swab of your dog’s mouth.  And Mars Veterinary of Virginia offers a blood test through vets which can test for 157 breeds at a cost of $100-$200, depending on your vet.  For me, the days of shrugging will soon be over. 

Interestingly, genetic testing is also rapidly becoming one of the new frontiers in health and wellness.  Alticor is the largest stockholder in Interleukin Genetics, the only company that has developed a DNA based risk assessment test that can tell people whether or not they have a genetic risk factor that affects their own inflammatory response.  Chronic inflammation is now thought to be an important risk factor for heart disease, and interleukin 1 (IL-1) genetic variations have been shown to be an indicator of early cardiac events. 

Interleukin Genetics has been awarded 20 U.S. patents for work linking variations in inflammation genes with risk for disease.  A quick review of Interleukin’s website shows it is at various stages of developmental work on genetics tests for osteoporosis, weight management, general nutrition, cardiovascular disease, skin aging, and PerioNX.  Of importance to Quixtar IBOs is that the Interleukin website states that since 2003 the majority of Interleukin’s development efforts have been part of a broad strategic alliance with Alticor.

Over the past few years Quixtar has been moving toward making itself the leading health and wellness company in North America, and eventually around the world.  It now offers two Interleukin developed genetic tests.  One, the Gensona Heart Health Genetic Test, is the first and only IL1 gene test to identify an individual’s predisposition for over-expression of inflammation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease and acute cardiac events.  The other, the Gensona General Nutrition Genetic Test, identifies nutrient metabolism (including Vitamin B and anti-oxidants).  And then Nutrilite follows behind those tests and offers specific products in response to those tests that can help those found to possess some of the risk markers to maintain and enhance their health.  It can’t get much better than that.  

These kind of product offerings clearly improve Alticor’s and Quixtar’s credibility in the general marketplace, and particularly in the health and wellness field.  Hopefully there will be more offerings to follow in the future from Quixtar as Interleukin’s developmental research moves forward, offerings which obviously would only further enhance Alticor’s and Quixtar’s health and wellness reputations. 

In my opinion, these are the type of products that are integral to the success of the current business transformation, not primarily because of the dollar volume of sales they can generate (even though I know that is very important), but because of what these products reveal about the quality and timeliness of the products Quixtar delivers to the consumer.  How could any reasonable, rational person put products like MonaVie or Xango in the same league with the kind of product offerings coming from Quixtar via Interleukin and Nutrilite today?  Quixtar’s health related products are Major League caliber and truly substantive.  The others are little more than bush league, hype, and spin. 

So is genetic testing going to the dogs?  Thankfully, I can say, “Yes!”  But when it comes to the genetic tests offered by Quixtar, it’s quite clear they are anything but “dogs.”  Quixtar’s genetic tests and Nutrilite’s follow-up products are leading edge and first tier and Quixtar’s IBOs should be excited we can promote and market such terrific product lines.

By the way, when I get the DNA results back I promise I will tell you on this blog what the genetic heritage of my dogs is.  Can’t wait!

What are your thoughts on Quixtar’s latest move into genetic testing? 

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Disease risk assessment, DNA testing, Dogs, Interleukin Genetics, Mars Veterinary, MetaMorphix, Quixtar

THERE MAY BE GOOD REASONS WHY QUIXTAR IS PURSUING THIS LEGAL COURSE OF ACTION

The recent Quixtar motion to compel (Feb 21st), the MonaVie suit (March 17th), and Quixtar’s counter suit (March 18th) immediately raise questions as to why the TEAM debacle has now moved into another legal arena.  While I will admit upfront I was not thrilled initially to read about more legal maneuvering involving Quixtar, the issues involving MonaVie and some of its associates appear to me to be valid concerns that may justify Quixtar’s action. 

Orrin Woodward announced on his personal blog a month ago that he was going to be joining MonaVie, but recently 45 days were added to his no-compete waiting period by the arbitrator in his case, apparently, sources tell me, because Orrin was trying to avoid the arbitration process.  That arbitration process has potentially put Orrin at risk of a large financial judgement against him if the arbitrator rules that Orrin’s alleged violation of his IBOAI Board Confidentiality Agreement, and his activities outside of arbitration including the TEAM lawsuit against Quixtar in multiple venues, caused Quixtar and its IBOs substantial losses in reputation or revenue. 

As of today Orrin is effectively enjoined from joining any other competitor, at least for a few more weeks.  Yet many of his former downline have finished their six month waiting periods and are now free to join whatever business they choose.  That raises many obvious  questions.  Is Orrin’s former downline waiting for him to register, or did they already register in MonaVie in advance of him?  If the latter, will Orrin be grandfathered in down the road above his former IBOs even though he registered in MonaVie after his former downline Quixtar IBOs?  What will the organizational structure of former Quixtar IBOs look like in MonaVie?  Similar to their Quixtar LOS?  Were any former Quixtar IBOs given sweetheart or structural guarantees?  Did MonaVie have a role in encouraging former Quixtar IBOs to violate the terms of their non-compete?  

In light of the stipulations and conditions stated in the Quixtar IBO contract agreed to by Orrin, the questions above (and many others) are serious questions of real importance to current Quixtar IBOs who want to protect not only the integrity of their organizations from raiding, but also the hard work they invested in building their networks.

In addition to these issues, Quixtar’s complaint also alleges that MonaVie engages in unfair competition based on false claims made by MonaVie and its distributors.  MonaVie talks about its ”body-beneficial blend of 19 berries, including the Brazilian acai berry, but does not disclose how much acai berry is in each bottle of MonaVie juice ($48).  The product seems to be a lot of hype, but not much in the way of substance.  Orrin’s protests about ”overpriced” Quixtar products and his commitment to WalMart pricing now ring incredibly hollow.  Today it seems Orrin’s more into Neiman Marcus pricing!  

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in U.S. District Court in the coming weeks and months. 

What are your thoughts on the latest legal filings by Quixtar?          

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Lawsuits, MonaVie, Quixtar, Woodward

INVITING BLOGGERS WITH HIGHLY DIVERSE POINTS OF VIEW TO SHARE WITH ALTICOR PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFF WHY THEY BLOG IS A TREMENDOUSLY POSITIVE STEP FOR THE COMPANY.  

Earlier this week five individuals who often blog about Alticor, Quixtar, and Amway Global topics of interest were invited to Prague, Czech Republic, by Alticor Corporate Communications.  They were asked to share their thoughts about why they devote so much time and energy to blogging about A/A/Q and to discuss the benefits of blogging to enhancing the overall reputation of the business.  The invitees, “IBO Fightback,” “Big Apple,” ”Tex,” Dave Robison, and Bridgett – all deserving members to the panel in my opinion – joined Alticor’s PR staff for a couple of days.  By all reports since the conference, each of them was a worthwhile addition to the dialogue.  The willingness of Quixtar, Amway, and Alticor to open their companies and their PR staff up to diverse opinions about their operations is highly commendable and should be greeted as a positive step by all IBOs and ABOs.

Allowing bloggers, even those with very strong opinions about topics of tremendous controversy (like “Tex” and the tool systems debate), to participate in conferences such as this Prague conference makes a strong statement by Alticor that it wants to better understand the conversation about itself going on in internet venues that are not directly sponsored or managed by Alticor or its subsidiaries.  This bodes well for the future direction of Alticor communications and how that conversation might shape up in the months and years to come.

Kudos to Alticor, Quixtar, and Amway Global for this very positive step.  Let’s keep the the dialogue going.    

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Alticor, Alticor Corporate Communications, Amway, Bloggers, Quixtar

If there is one area that stands out to me as a disappointment with Alticor and Amway Global over the past 6-12 months it has been their approach to communicating with IBOs and the general public.  Despite the fact that they have multiple in-house blogging and media outlets, Team Nutrilite, and the like, Alticor and Amway Global haven’t represented themselves or their interests as well as I believe they could have. 

A couple of quick examples. 

When the DBERR issue came up in the UK, Alticor blogged about it online once after the DBERR court hearing on Dec. 8th – and then went silent.  Alticor said it wouldn’t have anything further to say until the judge ruled on the case.  This was a serious error in judgement in my opinion.   I doubt anyone thought it would be over three months after the court hearing and there still wouldn’t be a ruling.  Unfortunately, Alticor didn’t provide an update again until Jan. 25th (in an online post that was more an update on issues with TEAM than the UK).  Here is the UK portion of that post on the Alticor Media Blog:

UK: Closing arguments in the UK trial ended December 8. The court may rule anytime. However, out of respect for the court and British legal custom we will not comment on the case until the judge issues his ruling.

Not commenting is one thing.  Not updating, even if there has been no action taken, is quite another.  In this day of online rumor and conjecture, saying nothing is a fool’s errand.  It would have been far better for the company to state after the court hearing on Dec. 9th, “The court may rule anytime.  Out of respect for the court and British legal custom we will not comment on the case until the judge issues his ruling.  However, we will communicate with you again on Jan. 10th even if no ruling has been made.”  Come Jan. 10th, even if the judge hadn’t ruled, everyone would have known that Alticor was aware of their concerns about their businesses, so it was going to communicate with them about the case, even if that communication was nothing more than “no news.” 

The lack of communication after Dec. 8th resulted in numerous comments on blogs and websites by frustrated IBOs offering rumors and conjecture about what the delay in the ruling might signify (particularly since some websites implied that a ruling was likely in two to three weeks initially).  When people have their businesses at stake, silence is not the best policy, particularly in the UK, where so much had already transpired of late. 

I don’t believe the answer is that complicated.  Alticor could easily assuage its UK ABOs’ fears with simple, to the point communications on a scheduled monthly basis until a ruling is made.  If there is no news, say there is no news.  The same is true in other markets.  But don’t remain completely silent, because if you do the rumor and conjecture mill will soon be in full swing, with online critics leading the way — and they often don’t fight fair.

A second example.  Recently in India a change was made in the sales and marketing plan, deleting the 3% level.  Yet I am not aware of any communication from the company to IBOs about the reasons for the change.  It appears at times as if Alticor/Amway Global is incredibly insensitive to how its actions affect IBOs and their businesses.  How can it make a change of that nature and not fully explain the reason for that change to the very people it will impact?  In fact, how can it not make IBOs in other markets aware of the change?  Does Alticor and Amway Global really think we believe that significant changes in other markets might not someday affect our market?  Does anyone honestly believe that government intervention in aspects of the tool business in India, Russia, the UK, and the Phillipines for example, will not someday (if it hasn’t already) impact the US market?

I highly doubt it.

Alticor and Amway Global, the answer is simple:  communicate, communicate, communicate.  Explain what you are doing — what, when, where, why, and how; and do it on a regular basis, scheduled in advance if possible.  Do that and you will take some of the wind out of the sails of the critics and lower the IBO frustration that often leads to doubt, unfounded rumors, and ill-informed conjecture.

What are your thoughts on how Alticor and Amway Global can communicate better with IBOs and the general public?

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Alticor, Alticor Media Blog, Amway, Quixtar, Reputation, tool systems, Transparency

SINCE SO MANY INDIVIDUALS WANT TO DEFEND THEIR REPUTATION AND POINT OF VIEW ONLINE, MAYBE ITS TIME TO RESORT TO DUELING TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES

“Throughout history, people have found some mechanism for vindicating their reputations.  For centuries, European aristocrats defended their honor by dueling.  The duel, which originated in Italy around 1500, became immensely popular among European gentlemen, especially in the 1600s and 1700s.  As one commentator observes, ’In France alone, in the the twenty-one years of Henri IV’s reign, 1589 to 1610, perhaps ten thousand gentlemen died for their honor.’”  — DANIEL J. SOLOVE, author of The Future of Reputation:  Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet

Although most of us today would think of dueling as incredibly barbaric, for centuries it was considered to be a civilized and cultured way of settling disputes.  A duel could be provoked by gossip, insult, or defamation.  In fact, even the slightest of insults could instigate a duel.  The kind of insults that often provoked a duel would seem incredibly foolish to most of us.  Merely calling someone a “puppy,” a ”liar,” or a ”coward” could spark a duel.

Defending one’s reputation went without saying.   President John Adams once stated that the “man . . . without attachment to reputation, or honor, is undone.”  As one U.S. congressman remarked in 1794, ”Slander is in a moral what poison is in a physical sense; it is the resource of cowards.  It is a species of attack against which it is impossible to defend ourselves.”      

The “code duello” an elaborate set of rules, governed the practice of dueling.  The offended person would issue a challenge and swords or pistols would be used.  Before the scheduled duel was fought the parties exchanged letters and engaged in negotiations to determine if a reconciliation could be reached. 

Daniel Solove writes, “Each party to the duel had a ’second,’ who functioned as his agent throughout the process.  In many cases, the parties reached a settlement, with the offender admitting, for example, that a rumor was spurious without conceding that he had deliberately spread a lie.  Skillful seconds were adept at helping the parties reconcile, and one contemporary observer even remarked that ‘nine duels out of ten, if not ninety-nine out of a hundred, originate in the want of experience in the seconds.’  ‘It is not the sword or the pistol that kills,’ another stated, ‘but the seconds.’” 

Dueling became particularly popular in the South.  Andrew Jackson allegedly engaged in more than a hundred duels before becoming president and even killed a man during one duel.  Eventually the church and every state prohibited dueling, but the practice persisted.   A duelist who killed his opponent could face murder charges, but this was ineffective as juries were seldom willing to convict.

One of the primary reasons dueling was so difficult to stop was the strong social pressure to defend one’s honor.  If a person was unwilling to duel he was thought to be without a backbone.  As Samuel Johnson once said, the gentleman duels “to avert the stigma of the world, and to prevent himself from being driven out of society.” 

Alexander Hamilton died in a duel he didn’t want to fight.  When Aaron Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel in 1804, Hamilton wrote that he “abhor[red] the thought of dueling” but he felt a “peculiar necessity not to decline the call.”  He further explained that to remain “useful” in public affairs he had to protect his reputation, which would be discredited if he refused Barr’s challenge.  During the duel, Hamilton’s shot missed (by some accounts that was his intention), but Burr’s shot mortally wounded Hamilton.

For all of their crudeness, duels did serve an important function in society.  As the historian David Parker notes, “The duel offered a highly effective tool for repairing a damaged reputation” because others in the aristocracy viewed one’s willingness to duel as “evidence” of his “integrity and conviction” and because “an agreement to duel was also an agreement to end the polemic that gave rise to the duel.”  Parker adds, “Ideally, a well-fought duel reconciled the two adversaries, reestablished mutual respect, and ‘cleansed’ the stain caused by the original insult.”

Sounds like a worthwhile approach to me.

Wait a minute, forget this post.  I just realized we don’t need dueling.  We already have the “Posting” and “Comments” sections on the Alticor, Amway, and Quixtar related blogs all over the web.  They seem to serve the same purpose. 

What are your thoughts on improving the quality of dialogue on Alticor/Awmay/Quixtar related websites and blogs?

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Alticor, Amway, Quixtar, Reputation

HONESTY AND TRANSPARENCY REQUIRE FULL DISCLOSURE BY AMWAY GLOBAL 

Recently Team Nutrilite signed the remarkable Brazilian soccer — I mean ”‘futbol” — superstar, Ronaldinho as one of its spokespersons.  (Have you seen some of his amazing You Tube videos?!)  In several of the press releases announcing his signing Nutrilite delineated his past individual and team achievements.  The same was true when Nutrilite announced its other spokesperson/athletes:  Powell, Xiang, Stuczynski, Reece, and Richards.  In each case the athlete’s past and present achievements were touted to the Amway Global family, the media, and the world.  If Ronaldinho was the Player of the Year for a particular year, that year was disclosed.  Ronaldinho was not announced as the FIFA World Player of the Year, but as the FIFA World Player of the Year for 2004 and 2005 and the FIFPro World Player of the Year 2005 and 2006.  He was not announced as the FIFPro Player of the Year for 2007 because that year the award’s recipient was another Brazilian, Kaka, of the A.C. Milan team.  The same approach is taken when it comes to players in the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL.  When players in these leagues earn various individual or team awards or achieve performance milestones they are always attached to the year they were awarded or achieved.  

So what does all of this background information have to do with enhancing honesty and transparency in Amway Global?

When IBOs achieve particular levels in this business they also earn the title that goes with that achievement:  Platinum, Sapphire, Emerald, Diamond, Executive Diamond, the list goes on.  One serious challenge as I see it is that years after initially achieving a level, they still carry the title that goes with that level (unless they’ve moved up a pin).  However, outside of their upline, almost no one knows what their current business level is, whether they have requalified at that level in the business or not.  Often, they haven’t. 

This creates a dilemma, one that I believe has moral implications.  We have numerous IBOs who still move about in the business with the prestige, honor, respect that goes with the title ”Emerald” and “Diamond” who have not requalified at that level since the first time they achieved that level or for several years.  In more cases than Amway Global or the tool systems would like to admit we have ”Diamond” IBOs who have not requalified as Diamonds for years (for a decade or more in some cases), or even as Emeralds for that matter.  Some haven’t even qualified for the Achievers Conference.  Yet they continue to be announced as “Diamonds” and allowed to speak on system stages as active, top performing business leaders.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of IBOs have no idea some of these so-called “Diamonds” may not currently have a business remotely resembling a Diamond business in terms of number of front line Platinums, active IBOs, or product volume.  The same is true of Emeralds, EDCs, and Crowns.  Yet “Diamonds” who have not broken a front line Platinum in their home market for years are put on stages around the world to tell you how you too can reach their level in the business.  The simple truth, however, is that if all the facts were known, you may already be at or near their current level!    

In years past Amway changed the design from time to time of the pins awarded at various levels.  When you requalified you earned the newly designed pin for your new level of success.  I kind of view that approach as passive/aggressive corporate persuasion.  If your business isn’t growing, people will soon know by your “old” pin.

I believe there is a better way.  An approach that is far more honest and transparent and less subject to manipulation and misrepresentation by tool systems and business leaders.  That approach?  Full disclosure.

I believe Amway Global should publish every year in each market, as well as online showing all markets, the names of the IBOs who qualified at every recognized level above Platinum in the business, including Achievers qualifiers, earned FAA points, and related QBI type criteria.  Perhaps the company could also disclose in parentheses behind each Platinum IBO listed the number of front line, newly qualified Platinums each Platinum sponsored that year.  

Allowing IBO “leaders” to represent themselves as being at business pin levels they no longer qualify for is, at best, misleading, and, at worse, full-fledged deceit.  It is comparable to allowing Muhammad Ali present himself as the “Heavyweight Champion of the World.”  He once was the heavyweight champion, but he isn’t today.  Today he is the former heavyweight champion.  Or its similar to having the Phoenix Suns’ Shaquille O’Neal present himself as an expert on how to shoot free throws.  Someone like O’Neal, who has never shot much better than 50% from the free throw line, has little to offer any basketball player about how to shoot free throws well (even though he no doubt would have a lot to offer speaking about basketball in general).  And an IBO leader who developed his last front line Platinum ten years ago likely has little to offer IBOs on the nuances of how to build the business in the internet age.  More than likely, absent some personal reason for not building, if he really knew how to build the business today, he would be doing it.

I am not saying an IBO leader would not have anything worthwhile to say to IBOs about the Amway/Quixtar business.  He or she might have a lot to offer on issues of attitude, life coaching, and much more.  But that doesn’t diminish the proposition that his/her actual current business pin level should be known by those in any audience that leader speaks to.  Anything less borders on misrepresentation.  The more the audience knows about the speaker and his business and his level of business growth the better their understanding of how much credibility to give to what the leader has to say.

In the same way that a quick perusal of the sports pages can tell us how our favorite professional athletes are performing this year, Amway Global can help all IBOs know how well our favorite IBO leaders have been performing of late as well.  Full disclosure by Amway Global regarding its IBO leaders’ qualified pin levels is a great place to start.  In addition, Amway Global should not allow any IBO to represent him- or herself at any business function as being at any busness level other than his/her currently qualified pin level based on the last fiscal/QBI year.

What are your thoughts on how Amway Global could enhance its honesty and transparency in the achievement and recognition areas? 

written by Chuck Lia