Utility Warehouse (Telecom Plus) Discussion

chrisclipson

Oh, OK, I'll have another guess. Is it that network marketing 'businesses' operate on the edge of legality and feel the need to defend themselves by ganging up and attacking anyone who dares question their methods?

I'll get it right in a minute... :j

keggs

Incorrect. Network marketing businesses are perfectly legal. In fact they and the people involved have far more legal protection than traditional businesses. Laws strengthening them have been passed ever since 1973. The legal case involving Amway which you mentioned was settled as you well know in favour of Amway. The case also involved the selling of items related to the business but not not directly involving the business was the reason for the dispute. The legality of Network Marketing was never in question.

Try again

BTW - Sarcasm doesn't do your case any good at all.

1carminestocky

chrisclipson wrote: »

Oh, OK, I'll have another guess. Is it that network marketing 'businesses' operate on the edge of legality and feel the need to defend themselves by ganging up and attacking anyone who dares question their methods?

I'll get it right in a minute... :j

I may be proved wrong but I have a feeling that's wildly optimistic.

keggs

Anybody else fancy a try?

theartfullodger

Oh this is fun:

The more the UW apparatchiks and stakhanovites end up spending time here posting the less damage they do "selling" their unlikely-to-eventually-prove-a-good-deal vapour-ware-wizzo-deal, thus the less damage they will cause to our fellow men.

I wouldnae touch UW with a very long barge-pole: and would advise anyone else to avoid them as well.



There are several long posts relating to UW in this sub-board with differing views (some in favour, many against UW). IMHO the most vociferous and increasingly panicking posters are, oddly, "distributors" for UW. These distributors/senior managers or whatever they call themselves operate in a manner many fair-minded people would find reminiscent of a Pyramid scheme. However UW tell me it is not a Pyramid scheme so I accept their statement that it is not a Pyramid scheme.


Cheers!

Lodger

PS As I said, clearly not a Pyramid Scheme.

keggs

While you are trying to work out the main difference between traditional businesses and networking businesses cn I give youa nother thought.

Network marketing businesses are always accused by unknowledgeable people as being pyramid selling schemes. If you know anything about how traditional businesses actually work then you might realise that they are pretty similar to the way so called illegal pyramid selling schemes work. This also includes ironically the State Pension scheme we all contribute to.

Network marketing businesses actually operate the other way round.

That's not the main difference by the way but it is one big difference.

keggs

theartfullodger wrote: »

Oh this is fun:

The more the UW apparatchiks and stakhanovites end up spending time here posting the less damage they do "selling" their unlikely-to-eventually-prove-a-good-deal vapour-ware-wizzo-deal, thus the less damage they will cause to our fellow men.

I wouldnae touch UW with a very long barge-pole: and would advise anyone else to avoid them as well.



There are several long posts relating to UW in this sub-board with differing views (some in favour, many against UW). IMHO the most vociferous and increasingly panicking posters are, oddly, "distributors" for UW. These distributors/senior managers or whatever they call themselves operate in a manner many fair-minded people would find reminiscent of a Pyramid scheme. However UW tell me it is not a Pyramid scheme so I accept their statement that it is not a Pyramid scheme.


Cheers!

Lodger

PS As I said, clearly not a Pyramid Scheme.

Please define a pyrmaid selling scheme. I actually do know what it is but do you?

theartfullodger

Hey! My cunning plan is working! The poor lamb canna even spell.

Please define a pyrmaid selling scheme. I actually do know what it is

Cheers!

Lodger

keggs

Clearly you are unable to answer either of my questions. Should I spoon feed you?

However the answer to the question about the difference is actually quite simple if you think about it. It also accounts for why many distributors in network marketing companies including UW earn high incomes irrespective of where they are in any particular network.

Networking companies are about 2 things only:

1. Getting products from the maufactuer to the end consumer and

2. The more distributors work the more they get paid. No work - no pay. Lots of work - lots of pay.

The more customer you have - the more commssion you get paid.

Hope that helps get the thinking caps on

kippen_noedel

keggs wrote: »

Incorrect

Can you answer my question?

lol, ok, so Marx was first a philosopher, who happened to believe that mankind could move towards an egalitarian society if only everyone had equal opportunity. He believed in pure communism which is socialsim at its basest. In theory great, in practice horrendous.

The lower in the rung you are the less you prosper = UW and EVERY other organisation. UW is no different, disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The core difference to my view is that the "insiders" pretend otherwise. Pure capitalism has no such pretense.

but since you so neatly sidestepped MY POINT

nothing socialist about any organisation that has a return on equity of 42.2%. Or do you dispute that according to last years published results the return on equity is 42.2% ?