Talk:Amway/Archive 1

Quick Changes

I'm adding this section because the massive debate below is a little intimidating to wade through, espiecally if someone just wants to let people know about simple & uncontroversial change.

• Under Legal rulings, when referring to Amway's 1983 pleading, changed Dick DeVos to Richard DeVos. While Dick is technically a valid shortening of Richard, the co-founder of Amway is usually referred to as Richard, while his son is referred to as Dick.

Opening comments

I have edited the article today (08 January 2003) to promote a more neutral point of view. The article seemed to be biased, just slightly, to an anti-amway perspective; I have deletedo - that is a name exclusive to critics of Amway, and should be mentioned as such. Someone doing that search will not find answers from Amway or pro-Amway folks as they don't use that term.

It seems that you are trying to claim that only answers from Amway or pro-Amway folks are appropriate to this article. Brad Eleven

There are, aligned with Quixtar, groups like ina.net that fit this description and do the training and motivation of Quixtar distributors, who distribute Amway and other products through a common distribution arm.

So what's your point again? AxelBoldt

these groups are called Independent Marketing Companies or something else by Quixter, ina.net is one of these.

It's a fundamental issue with direct multi-level marketing organizations that they can't control the behavior of frontline distributors, probably no more than Arafat can control the timing of suicide bombers. Same top-down versus bottom-up behavior influence debate... the Amway Corp does try to make certain things standard, e.g. no "door to door selling", and they succeed in general, but they have only a few blunt instruments with which to do so.

This article needs to be updated, and the "AMOs" need to be documented - I don't doubt that somewhere somehow someone used this name for them, but they serve a legitimate role in multi-level marketing, although they may overstep it and become bad religions...

Oh God. Now 24 starts to preach MLM in addition to "embodied mind" and "ecoregion". AxelBoldt

ecologists preach "ecoregion", psychologists preach "embodied mind" - I merely report. As to your issue with MLM, it's seems to me to be an issue with capitalism. Which I think I gave very neutral treatment to. You want an economic system driven by human desire and advertising, you're going to see a lot of people conned, often. That may or may not be the fault of the organization that provides the products and the attracive payoff scheme.

a neutral fact is that Amway has created more millionaires than any other company in the world, Microsoft is only second. Both companies are hated but it's a combination of envy *and* perhaps some abuses of market position that account for it. MLM schemes come and go, Amway/Quixtar has stayed. Of course not everyone succeeds in it. But the millionaires aren't complaining.

... and a citation for this "neutral fact"? AxelBoldt

It's not at all neutral, and is an assertion, not a fact. It seems to be impossible to prove, since the "Amway millionaires" overwhelmingly owe their financial success not to Amway, but to the sales of books, tapes, and seminar tickets--and these same people cannot acknowledge this proven fact because of the obvious damage it would cause to the people to whom they claim that there is no profit in these "tools". Brad Eleven

---

The FTC ruling was allegedly initiated by Proctor and Gamble, who competes with Amway for sales of packaged consumer goods. P&G were concerned about continued erosion of their market share by Amway and businesses with a similar structure to Amway's.

Who has alleged this when and where?

Rather than contest the charges, which could have resulted in distributors suffering financially because of a court injunction prenting business during a trial, Amway paid the fine. Amway later successfully appealed the fine but did not appeal the conviction -- again to avoid causing suffering to its network of distributors.

How could they appeal the conviction when they had pleaded guilty in the first place? Are you saying that they first paid the fine, then successfully appealed the fine and got the money back? How much did they pay in the end? AxelBoldt 03:42 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

____ I see somebody has added something about Emma Page jewellery being available through Amway in Australia, as well as New Zealand. Please provide a source for this. I am well aware of its availability in NZ; my wife and I are both Amway distributors and have sold Emma Page jewellery under Amway auspices. In Australia, however, my understanding is that Emma Page has its own distribution network; only in New Zealand does it contract Amway. That was the last I heard (last year) - that Australian Amway distributors were very envious of their New Zealand counterparts because there is a substantial profit in Emma Page. Now, for all I know, this MAY have changed. If it has, could you name your source? I will make some inquiries myself; in the meantime, I will let your edit stand. Davidcannon 11:09, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just go to the various Emma Page sites www.emmapage.com.au and www.emmapage.co.nz to see what's up with EP these days.

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Amway ===

Critics, many of them former Amway distributors, claim that Amway distribution networks (which technically are independent from the company itself) are cults or cultlike. They claim that the distribution networks encourage people to dedicate their lives to efforts that usually will make them little money, encourage people to not think for themselves, encourage unthinking fanaticism for Amway products, encourage people to deceive others and hide the truth from outsiders, and use mind control and psychological pressure to encourage people to join the organization and to discourage them from leaving.

On its Web site, the company denies that it is a cult. "No, Amway Corporation is a business and, similar to other large and established companies, has a distinct environment defined by shared business goals. Shared business philosophies should not be misinterpreted as a cult."

References:

• http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Amway/ (Ex-Cult Resource Center)
• http://www.amway.com/en/General/faqs-10229.aspx#10217 (Amway)

Poorly Edited and Lots of POV

I came to this site looking for unbiased information so that I could make a fair evaluation for myself. I have previously been highly skeptical of all multi-level marketing systems and remain so, however, I was afraid I had not been open minded about the idea and wanted more information. I did not find it. This article contains numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors and shows poor proofreading. "IBO" is never written out on this page, I think it's probably "Independent Business Organizatons" or something like that, but abbreviations should be explained on this page. The only pro-Amway linnk is their corporate website, there must be others. The use of the word "kingpin" and the phrase "train wreck" are very far from the Wikipedia call for unbiased language and the paragraph that cites Independent Media TV as well as one that follows do not allow for errors in reporting or POV in those reports but recite the reports as facts themselves. This article needs a lot of work. Unfortunately, I came here looking for information I didn't already have and still don't. Someone else will have to rewrite this entry and I will have to look elsewhere for my information. -- DH 2005.04.07

Your point is well taken. It seems that Amway/Quixtar requires its own page, with links to articles about the various AMOs which have, unfortunately, given the Amway Corporation a bad name. OTOH, Amway--and Richard DeVos in particular--have acknowledged the problem with AMOs, but have not taken any steps to resolve the problem. It is my opinion, from personal experience and research, that the Amway Corporation's marketing plan is extremely fair: Unlike pyramid schemes, their plan requires retail sales, and does not reward individuals for simply finding another hard-working individual whose efforts they can profit from, simply from having sponsored him or her. In particular, it has been shown that the Amway/Quixtar income represents only a fraction of the total income of the wealthiest distributors. Most of the income results from the markup on books, tapes, seminar tickets, and other merchandise sold to unsuspecting distributors, who believe--and in some cases, are told--that these "tools" are sold at cost plus a small margin to cover shipping and other associated expenses. The evidence for this assertion is readily available as free and public information in the dozens of lawsuits filed by distributors who do not like the unfair terms of the "tool business." Brad Eleven

I'd like to know how a company who's products majority never make it to retail sales is anything other than a pyramid scheme. What "research" has convinced you that it's fair? The only reason this company doesn't face legal action is because it pretty much owns Republican party, which immediately shuts down government lawsuits and oversight the second it has any control over anything affecting Amway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.206.11 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How greatly you are misled about Amway. Amway has been linked to terrorist organisations. It has importeed hard drugs into third world countries. It has smuggled illegal military arms into countries where civil wars have taken place. It has riddiculed many people. Amway is involved with illegal narcotics across the globe. It has also been involved with civil was and wars where many innocent American soldiers have died and many soldiers MIA such as in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.64.184 (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Information on cultic/illegal characteristics

I've added some information surrounding Amway's cultic characteristics and complications with the legal system, as well as my own observations regarding the behavioural conformity of AMOs with Hassan and Jay Lifton's models of mind control, and mention of G Robert Blakey's expert report from Amway v Proctor & Gamble. However, I've tried to keep this information limited to what I hope are demonstrable facts rather than value judgements/interpretations, and have also largely confined my additions to the "Criticisms" section. Although my opinion of Amway most certainly is not either neutral or positive, it is my hope that because my additions have been contained in Criticisms, and because I have made an attempt to keep my additions factual, a reasonably neutral tone can be maintained, while at the same time noting Amway's less ethically desirable characteristics. I have also removed the references to the terms "train wreck" and "kingpins" in an attempt to create a more neutral tone. - Petrus 06/05/2005

Someone has removed my reference to the Blakey report, which I don't believe is really appropriate. That report includes important information about the structure of Amway...I think it's important that someone thinking of becoming involved with Amway should know if they are potentially becoming involved with a quasi-criminal organisation. - Petrus 08/05/2005

"Classic" and modern labels

The article needs some work to be brought current; but I'm not sure the best way to go about it. After the 1999 reorganization, a lot of elements were relabeled. The large corporation formerly known as Amway is now called Alticor; the North American division is called Quixtar; the products manufacturing division is now called Access Business Group; and the segment of the company that does business outside North America is now called Amway.

In addition, the word "distributor" is no longer used within the organization; the function has been relabeled "Independent Business Owner" (IBO). There are other examples like this.

The article should also mention the company line given to explain the reorganization (that the Quixtar online division accounted for 95+% of their business within it's first year of operation, so they relegated the Amway name to international business) and the counterpoint that in the States, "Amway" had colloquially become synonymous with "scam" and the company was probably trying to do whatever it took to lose that image.

Because a lot of people don't know about the 1999 reorganization (and because it's kind of confusing) the relabeling is going to have to be explained carefully. Also, a lot of people are unfamiliar with the term "IBO" but are much more familiar with the deprecated "distributor."

Suggestions? Joshf 9 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Thanks for that careful analysis. I have a suggestion (though I'm not especially familiar with Amway/Aticor/Quixtar I have read and edited many articles). As an encyclopedia it is best if our articles report on what was as well as what is. So rather than changing the old label to the new label, or vice versa, it be better to write a history that essentially says, "When the company started it was like this. Then it was like this. As of 1999, it is now like this." It sounds like the 1999 reorganization deserves a section or at least a major paragraph, while right now it gets just two sentences (there may also be some other bits and pieces that can be moved). May I also suggest that you be bold and do the edit yourself? There may be some websites in the list of links that can provide sources. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:37, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't recommend including the relabelling in a more extensive way than simply offering a glossary of terms. The primary motivation behind the name changes/re-organisation was to attempt to shed the company's entrenched global image of at worst a commercial cult, and at best a quasi-legal organisation with a fundamental structure and function very similar to the traditional crime syndicate, which was ultimately only allowed to do business in the US in particular due to a technicality. Offer a translation table, perhaps, but simply switching to use of the new names could lead to exactly the kind of confusion which those who engineered the name changes were hoping for.

What I want to do is *avoid* the confusion and so put the "translation" table in an obvious and accessible spot; probably near the beginning of the document. I think the only way to make it flow with the rest of the article is to explain the '99 merger right off the bat; maybe in the intro or maybe make the first paragraph a history with an explanation of the merger/name change. I also think it'd be worth it to merge this with Alticor and Quixtar. Joshf 14:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Very POVed

[I've removed the POV check template from the discussion page. See Wikipedia:POV_check for the correct use of this template. Interpolated comment by Joshf 15:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Too focused on Dexter Yager's organization which is totally unreflective of the business in other parts of the world especially the fastest growing and already the biggest part of the Amway business, the Asia and Asia Pacific region. Misses completely the success of Foo Howe Kean, a legendary figure as a Crown Ambassador in 3 different countries, and a more identifieable figurehead in the huge Asian region.

Very long sections on critism and controversy, and yet for such a huge business the article is extremely short on business success details. Completely glosses over the fact that it has made many millionaires all over the world. Does not mentione the core products such as the Nutrilite range, which has a long history and contribution in the field of nutrition, the founder being Carl Rhemborg, who created the first multivitamin and mineral supplement over 70 years ago. Also misses the point that Euromonitor has named Artistry as the top 5 leading prestige cosmetic brand in the world.

Very biased article.

-Johan

No, it's not POV'ed. Yager is mentioned twice. The article comments on Amway's profits in East Asia. Criticism and controversy are discussed because there is lots of criticism and controversy surrounding this company. Furthermore, the millionaires you mention most likely made their riches not from selling products but from selling tools. If you want to give people more information on Nutrilite and Artistry, you're welcome to make additions to the article, rather than complaining.

Yes, it is very POVed. Why Yager has an entire paragraph at all concerning him is beyond me, except for the fact he is American, he doesn't represent Amway to the world at large by any means. What you said, "Furthermore, the millionaires you mention most likely made their riches not from selling products but from selling tools." is patently untrue. For every person or couple that has made money this way, I can mention at least 10 who doesn't, mostly in the biggest market of Amway, the Asian region. I am willing to contribute ( I wrote the part about the owners being elected chairmen of the Chambers of Commerce) However, there are so many missing parts, it merits a total rewrite. I loathe to do this, because i get the feeling this is not the wiki way of doing things.

No, not really. Yager is THE major distributor/tools provider and is hailed by many Amway/Quixtar LOSs. A paragraph is a reasonable amount of text devoted to him. What, is Amway embarrased of Yager now? Second, the sentence you quoted is accurate, not biased, as the main money in AmQuix comes from tools. I can also counter with the law of averages: For every person in AmQuix who makes a good income ~($50,000yr), dozens have to be losing money to bring the average income to $137/month. Finally, your "owners elected chairmen" part is completely IRRELEVANT to the Amway business. Just because you don't agree with the article, and because it discusses controversial issues regarding Amway.

No, really. Yager is not very well known in regions which make up the biggest part of Amway. Foo Howe Kean and Nakajima are. To say that the American Yager in any way represents what Amway is to the majority of the world is a blatantly western-centric POV. AmQuix is the American establishment of Amway, however Amway is in over 90 countries and territories, the statistics in Amway America does not represent the entire world. Amway aside, 95% of conventional business's fail within their first 5 years. The incorrect notion that people have to lose money for someone to succeed in Amway is like blaming the 5% of successful conventional businesses for 95% failures. In no way does the plan require you to lose money in the Amway business, however the low barrier of entry means more people are willing to invest in the Amway business compared to conventional business'. The owners being elected chairmen of the Chambers of Commerce is completely relevant for it shows the standing of Amway among the business community.

First, if you want to add information about Asian diamonds, feel free to do so. Are you embarrased of Yager? Many Asian LOS (Gala, for example) push just as many tools as Yager's org. Second, the "95% of businesses fail during the first five years" is a direct quote from a motivational "tools" tape; it is also FALSE. According to the Small Business Association, "66.0 percent of businesses remained open at least 2 years, 49.6 percent at least 4 years, and 39.5 percent at least 6 years" [1]. Please stop posting tapespeak lies. Third, by its very nature as a closed pyramid, the plan REQUIRES that those at the bottom lose money. All those at the bottom will lose money until they recruit enough people; at that point, those people will lose money until they recruit enough, etc. Finally, the owners' status as members of the CoC has absolutely NO BEARING on Amway as a business, and is therefore IRRELEVANT. The owners are not being discussed in this article; Amway is. And if you care to know what the actual "business community" thinks about Amway IBOs, I'll tell you: they're a laughing stock.

Adding information is one thing, removing plenty of information pertinent only to American Amway is another. Its wholesale changes. What I'm embarrassed with is that the more successful Asians are somehow represented by an American. No single distributor organization represents Amway. Its a worldwide phenomenon and its insulting to assume any one person as the definitive image bearer of the business. The 95% quote i got from the much vauted internet of yours, not from any tape. Here is the link and they quote the Small Business Association too: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusiness/a/whybusfail.htm Whatever the numbers are, it still validates my point, taking your own numbers, its like blaming the top 39.5% for the failures of the rest.

Your insistence that the Amway business plan is a pyramid shows your POV in this matter. Firstly, the FTC (Federal Trade Commision) totally disagrees with you. This is from the FTC website "In In re Amway Corp.,(19) another landmark decision from the 1970's, the FTC distinguished an illegal pyramid from a legitimate multilevel marketing program." http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/dvimf16.htm Maybe its your lack of understanding of plan that is making this unclear to you. The downlines can be very rich and still the upline can fail in the business. It happens all the time and regularly at that.

Yes, the standing of the owners and founder of Amway has plenty to do with Amway Corp. If knew the history of the company, what Amway is today are totally based on the human principles put forward by their founder and owners. It is these very owners which were elected as the chairmen of Chamber of Commerce, showing the trust of the business community on the principles which are the foundation of Amway Corporation today.

Your laughing stock comment shows yet another ingrained POV from yourself. A business leader does not laugh at a multibillion dollar multinational company.

Why are you so insistent upoin removing information? Are you embarrased by Yager? If, as you say, Amway has many faces, then Yager is STILL ONE OF THEM. So add info about Asian IBOs if you want to diversify, but don't expect that this article will be only complimentary towards Amway. What is "Blaming the top 39.% percent for the failures of the rest" supposed to mean? I didn't blame anyone, I simply quoted statistics. So cut the tapespeak. The Amway plan IS a pyramid; the only reason that the FTC declared it "not illegal" is because of the 70% rule, which demands that 70% of products be sold OUTSIDE the organization. We both know that this rule is not enforced. The recruiting and sponsoring aspect of the plan is a pyramid. I still maintain that the standing of the owners is irrelevant, as are the "principles that it was founded on" because the only principle that the company curently follows ius worshipping the almighty dollar and upline. As far as being the "laughing stock," ask any serious businessman what he thinks of an Amway IBO. Here's something comparing real businesses with IBOships [2]. And as far as POV goes, yes I have a POV, so do you (a POV which is clearly taken from Amway tapes). The point is that the article is NPOV. Finally, this is not the place to debate the merits and demerits of Amway; why don't you go to Quixtar Blog and debate there?

why are you so insistent in getting me to say i'm embarassed of yager? Every post you have made has asked me the same question, and everytime I have replied "I'm embarrassed that in the article, any one distributor is made out as if he represents Amway" Yager by far and away doesn't. No one does. If I have to list out every single succesful organization, all with their own methods and individuality, it would be like writing a book. In the tiny country of Malaysia alone there are 8 crown ambassadors and hundreds of emeralds and above, lets not include the likes of China, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan and India. No single distributor is so signifacant in Amway today that they are worth mentioning in a summary artcile like this. It is an insult to the other successful distributors to leave any out. Are you willing to call the Amway company of each 90 countries and territories to list out all the succesful distributors and their assets like Yager was in this article?

Yes you did blame, "For every person in AmQuix who makes a good income dozens have to be losing money" which is really blatantly inane assesment, its like saying, for all the succesful business in this world, the rest must lose money. Anyone who actually knows the amway marketing plan would know this. As the FTC said, there is a huge difference in a pyramid scheme and a multilevel marketing system. In a legitimate MLM system, the top guy can easily fail as the bottom guy. the lower level guys can be insanely succeesful and his own sponsor can still fail.

"Cut the tape speak"? How about you cut the condescending attitude.

"We both know that this rule is not enforced." Actually, by your comments, you don't really know much about happens besides what anti-amway zealots tell you. The 70% percent rule is enforced in the distributor level and its a rule that is alive and well.

"ask any serious businessman what he thinks of an Amway IBO". Ok, how about asking the the many businessmen who made made their millions outside Amway in malaysia and why they are doing Amway now. Or possibly a certain Dato' Zul, who runs a billion ringgit company and 12 other companies, why he is closing down each one, one by one, to do Amway. Your limited experience of people laughing at Amway is consigned to your own small region. Amway Asia is huge and well respected. It is this sort of so called critisism which is entirely non-universal which litters the whole article.

The point of my post in this discussion page was to say that the article is POVed. And that is still the reason I continue to post here.

Yager is significant because he was one of the original developers of motivational "tools" which are for the most part responsible for the controversial nature of Amway businesses. You may call the criticism of Amway "non-universal" but that does not diminish the fact that there are some serious problems with the company, at least in the United States, Canada and India. Just because only a fraction of the apple is rotten does not mean it should be ignored, lest the rot spread to other parts.

I never said "for all the succesful business in this world, the rest must lose money." Saying that I made such a comparison is a straw-man technique and is utilized in many of Amway motivational tapes (Tapespeak, again!) However, say that a Diamond income is about $150,000. Amway ITSELF states that average distributor income is $1,380 annually BEFORE EXPENSES. Therefore, to bring the average down to the given figure, over 13,000 people must be LOSING money in the Amway business[3].

As far as tapespeak, I call them as I see them.

I don't need to listen to "anti-Amway zealots" to know what happens. Many American LOS encourage people to "buy from themselves" and to recruit more members. The "70% of products must be retailed to outside consumers" is more often than not IGNORED, and the focus is made on recruiting. Moreover, it is difficult to retail Amway products with their inflated prices (compared to Walmart, Costco, etc) and Amways debilitating restrictions on advertising and reselling products.

Once again, the Amway article is accurate and fair. If you don't feel that it does justice to Amway Asia, then feel free to help out.

I'm unsure as to why the above comment was signed with my username, when I have no recollection of writing it. Perhaps the original author made a mistake, or perhaps they were seeking to deliberately impersonate me. Given the degree of moral ambiguity which has at times been observed in Amway's supporters, I can only speculate as to what this individual's motives may have been.

Also in response to the above - it is well known that senior Amway distributors dislike any information about the business' less positive elements becoming public knowledge at all. For all the people who may have become wealthy via Amway, the business remains at least a partially criminal organisation, and while noting its successes, any genuinely objective reference about it must not hesitate in classifying it as such. Organisations such as Amway and the Church of Scientology have been made painfully aware of the ability of the Internet to subject them to a level of a forced accountability which they never experienced in the purely offline world, and they are being made to realise that despite whatever efforts they may make to the contrary, the truth about who and what they really are will become known. Cults can still run, but online they can no longer hide.
Petrus4 02:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The wrong username was an editing error, I apologize. This is my first time using the wikipedia. An example of a POV is your statement "For all the people who may have become wealthy via Amway, the business remains at least a partially criminal organisation" which has no basis at all. Having experienced the business personally in the Asian region, there is no criminal element in it whatsoever. And as i have said before, the Asian region the majority of Amway's business.

---

I have extensive experience with two distinct Amway AMOs. For this article to ignore them is like an article on the world history ignoring the impact of technology. Simply put, it is impossible to build a large multi-level/network marketing business such as Amway or Quixtar without the support of a motivational organization such as an AMO. Consider what owning a franchise would be like without constistent marketing support. Consider also that franchisers ensure that they'll make money from the deal--and that while their motives may seem justified, their methods are not always ethical.

I can see how people with AMO knowledge and an inclination to expose them might contribute material that seems biased. By the same token, I know personally how people currently involved with an AMO become very defensive. I personally argued with newcomers who immediately saw that the tools' prices suggested profit-taking in their sales--before I had any inkling that anyone was profiting from the sales of books, tapes, or seminar tickets.

There is a distinct difference between people who have been unsuccessful with an Amway/AMO and people who have enjoyed success in the same situation. In the former case, the tendency is to blame the organization--and to be perceived that way. There are several highly successful Amway IBOs who have quit and/or sued their respective AMOs over unfair business practices. Conversely, very few successful Amway IBOs have sued Amway.

As for the claim that Amway has produced more millionaires than any other company in the world, I would like to see some documentation. I seriously doubt that many millionaires have been created by Amway alone. Even if some Amway IBOs have taken their Amway income and invested it or diversified into other high-income businesses (e.g., real estate development, automobile dealerships), the Amway corporation just doesn't pay enough for anyone to even gross $1M in one year's time. I'd like to know more about the definition of "millionaire". Is it someone who has $1M or more in assets? Someone who has earned $1M or more in one year?

In 1990, I attained the level of Pearl Direct Distributor, with a very profitable organization. That is, I had twenty personally sponsored distributors, and nine were actively building their organizations. Two had gone direct, i.e., attained the level of Direct Distributor, and the other seven were Silver Producers (their organizations included at least one Direct, but they themselves hadn't qualified for Direct). My Amway checks included four distinct bonuses for speed of growth, overall volume, profit sharing, and for the number of direct distributors in my organization. My gross income from the Amway corporation--above bonuses plus PV bonuses--peaked at $3300/month. While the Pearl level is certainly not the highest level--and recognizing that the bonus structure has obviously changed over the past 15 years--let us consider my AMO income at that level. In five months after I made Pearl, I got AMO checks for $5400, $6100, $7900, $8700, and $9900. Let us be very clear: The AMO checks represented profit sharing from the AMO's sales of books, tapes, and seminar tickets, plus speaking fees I was paid for appearing at regional rallies. As I approached the Emerald level, several of my upline Diamonds counseled me to quit my job. I didn't want to quit, and I was very heavily pressured to do so. Among other things, I was offered a bigger cut of the profits from the tool volume in my organization. Aside from the staggering increase in tools income in the jump from Pearl to Emerald, I was taken aback at just how much money was at stake--and how much more the Diamonds and other high pin levels were making. It was obvious that the AMO income represented far more than their Amway income. After seeing a crossline Pearl get cut out of the AMO pie because of his religion (possibly particular to the AMO), I bailed out. I didn't want to quit my job because I enjoyed it, and I didn't want to get stuck doing what my AMO "upline" said to do because I needed the money.

I don't think it's important to "expose" the AMOs. I realize that some people are ashamed of Dexter Yager, and that some have deep respect for what he has accomplished. I think it's vital for an encyclopedia page to fully disclose all known information on any topic.

I don't think that this [discussion page] is the forum to relate AMO experiences. I personally had a bad experience that may or may not be representative of AMO participants, and so I decided to quit. I sold my Amway business. Take note that my AMO business was not considered saleable--the AMO decided who got my piece of the profits. Consider this fact the next time you hear (or say) that an Amway business and its attendant residual bonuses are willable and fully transferable.

I don't know what the best way to represent the AMOs is, but I am certain that they must be referenced. Perhaps a link to another page? For sure the claim that Amway has created the most millionaires should be either substantiated or removed. The current page is pretty representative of the Amway Corporation. Leaving out the AMOs doesn't work, although I support a neutral/positive page on the Amway Corporation. My experience with Amway is excellent: the company has unusually high integrity, its products are superior, if overpriced, and it has worked very hard to create a multilevel/network marketing system that truly rewards hard work, and only hard work. The same just can't be said of the AMOs.

Regarding the argument that Dexter Yager is an American and that IBOs in other countries have enjoyed great success: In any industry, the chief innovators are at least acknowledged. Dexter was a pioneer in that he figured out how to motivate people, to really help them to succeed--and he built in compensation for his efforts. That's revolutionary, and in theory, it's fair. Certainly the other super-IBOs worldwide owe something to Dexter. In many cases, he has provided his expertise, personally and via his closest associates, to IBOs the world over. You can be sure that he is compensated for this, whether by selling materials to the IBOs, providing production support, or through some other long-term arrangement. There is still nothing wrong with this.

The problem is simply that the AMOs are for the most part concealed. They are analogous to the lobbying industry in our government: they provide substantial leverage to the corporation and to the IBOs, but they are very secretive about their practices. Like the government's apparent unwillingness to reform the lobbying industry, Amway does a lot of talking about the problems with AMOs, but it refuses to take action. It is not at all obvious that most of the money earned by successful Amway IBOs comes from AMOs. Nor is it obvious that the AMOs do not use the same reward system as the Amway corporation. The AMOs have dominated the Amway corporation's distributor affairs organizations in the same way that their IBOs dominate Amway's volume.

I don't think it's important to make the AMOs wrong. Although they have had major problems with individual members (what wealthy organization doesn't?), their activities are not illegal, with the possible exception of some minor disclosures. Officially speaking, they are silent about the amount of money that they take in and pay out. Some individuals do misrepresent this aspect of AMOs, whether intentionally or naively.

Brad Eleven 17:12, 12 September 2005 (GMT)

Legal Ruling

I don't think being "flagged for Google bombimg" can be considered a legal ruling. Stick this under Criticisms, if anywhere. --Jquarry 21:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that it'd make more sense to change the heading to a broader "Legal & ethical violations". I would say that except that I'm not sure we should have this material at all. The only source is a blog, which is considered an unreliable source (see Wikipedia:reliable sources). Was this ever reported elsewhere? I'd think it would have been covered in the business press. -

Case citation

I added the citation for the 1979 FTC case that is frequently mentioned when discussing Amway. Hope everyone finds it helpful. Paul 21:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A discussion on FTC is incomplete without explicitly mentioning the 70% rule and 10 customer rule. This was central to the FTC decision. It is difficult to prove/disprove on Wikipedia whether distributors follow this rule. But even Amway avoids being explicit about it. http://www.amway.com/en/General/faqs-10229.aspx#10205 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knverma (talk • contribs) 12:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

To keep all discussions in one place, I am copying the following discussion from my talk page (which followed my comments to the mediator between Insider201283 and Will Beback). -- Knverma 19:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiya. Re FTC v Amway, the 70% rule and 10 customer rules were indeed in place prior to the FTC case. They were not however crucial to the finding of Amway to not being an illegal pyramid. What the FTC said was that they prevent abuses of the marketing model - primarily inventory loading, but also helping ensure legitimate products. The 70% rule is often misinterpreted as a "70% retail sales rule" - ie you have to sell 70% of products to a non-distributor. This isn't the case, it's entirely about inventory loading. 70% of products you buy have to be used or resold. In other words, if you end up with a garage full of soap trying to get a "pin" then you're breaking the rules. In the old Amway model you would buy products and resell to your downline. Those wholesale sales are also covered by the 70% rule. In the new model A/Q mostly ships direct, so inventory loading is not an issue with downline volume, thus it primarily refers to personal use and sales to customers. The 10 customer rule is a slightly different story. If you have legitimate "outside" customers than this is "proof" that you have a legitimately marketable product. This protects against you against all sorts of accusations of scamming, which is why Amway/Quixtar has always kept it in some form. It was not however crucial to determination of whether you are an illegal pyramid or not. Indeed a few years ago in response to the Direct Selling Association, the FTC explicitly stated that the "level of internal consumption" (ie whether it's all used by distributors or not) plays no part in determining whether something is a pyramid or not. You can read the letter here. You may also want to review this blog post

Yes, as I pointed, I have not yet said anything about the interpretation of the rules. At least we should mention the names of the rules in the articles. For the interpretations we can quote some sources on which we have consensus. Whether these rules were "crucial" or just "an element" of the FTC decision is a very subtle point. At least that FTC link I mentioned emphasizes the need for products to move out of the network. I will check the links you gave, but I am offline for 2 days starting from now. -- Knverma 15:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find your link again, could you direct me please? Following too many articles :-(. The FTC letter I supplied clearly states that they do not "need" products to move out of the network. Also, be careful of non sequitur - the FTC often points out that outside sales are evidence that something is not a pyramid. This does not mean that lack of outside sales is evidence of a pyramid, that's a logical non sequitur. In any case, this issue is actually addressed in the Quixtar article, Quixtar rules explicitly require member/client volume in order to qualify for downline bonuses. On the other hand, this rule is not in place in the majority of international markets, which is Amway today and where the FTC doesn't have any jurisdiction. Have a good weekend --Insider201283 17:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is here [4] and is cited by the Amway article. Your point regarding non sequitur is valid in general. But in this case, let me quote: "If a plan purports to sell a product or service, check to see whether its price is inflated, whether new members must buy costly inventory, or whether members make most "sales" to other members rather than the general public. If any of these conditions exist, the purported "sale" of the product or service may just mask a pyramid scheme that promotes an endless chain of recruiting and inventory loading.". So can we now agree that FTC feels the "need" for porducts to move out of the network? If the FTC website contradicts the letter you have, that is another issue which could be discussed. -- Knverma 12:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Criminals

I have added Amway to the Category:Criminals because the corporation plead guilty to tax evasion and other charges in Canada. The corporation itself was the criminal defendant and was convicted.

Please keep things in context. I suggest removing Category:Criminals from the page, as it indicates that Amway is involved in criminal conduct and should be viewed as such. This is not the case. Many major international companies around the globe have been found guilty of various charges, yet few people would consider these corporations belonging in the criminal category for their conduct, especially several decades after the fact. The information provided under the "Legal rulings" subheading should suffice in highlighting the legal elements of Amway's history. It is also interesting to see that the owners of the company have served in high level positions in the US Chamber of Commerce, positions that I'm sure business leaders from around the US would not have elected them into if they thought that the primary company of these people was criminal.

removed the criminal category

Lines of Sponsorship

Some of the information currently presented in this section is in fact incorrect. Status is not determined by ones position in the LOS. Status is derived from the highest pin level achieved. This is quite different, especially at the higher recognition levels where a downline can, and often, has a higher status than the upline. Also, reference to employment is incorrect. People who register with Amway are independent operators responsible for their own business activities (within a number of rules and regulations outlined in the contract).

---

Your point is well taken, and reinforces the Amway Corporation's attention to detail in creating and maintaining its business plan. Distributors must earn their pin level (and attendant income from Amway) and re-qualify every year.

The problem with this is that pin levels are also used by AMOs to determine speaking fees and discounts on "tools" merchandise, e.g., the bigger your pin, the more money you make selling books, tapes, seminar tickets to your groups. Amway is strict about qualification and re-qualification, but AMOs are not. "Once a Diamond, Always a Diamond" are the words the Yager organization uses to describe this policy.

Brad Eleven but hey Amway is involved with arms smuggling and drug narcotics smuggling across the globe by w=using a security comapny called Blackwater.

---

Network 21 "international"

I have removed the reference to Network21 being the most "international" of all the LOS. This comment is unsubstantiated. Whoever entered it should include a reference before returning it to the article.

Quality

This article's quality, as is somewhat inevitable, is degrating. It is filled with Amquix jargon and not wikified all that well. Paul 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also missing history, more than a scant mention of AMOs and any mention of the c-word...etc. heqs 12:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

EDIT--I've been associated with Amway for quite a long time. Quite a bit of info here is missing. Not an article upto the "encyclopedia" standards. --Sy2yp (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)--Sy2yp (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious para in Intro

This para in the intro:

As is the case with many things that have initial ideals, while Amway has been successful in implementing this ideal to a large degree, some controversial and less fortunate elements have also developed around the business over time. Most of the latter however is primarily associated with the secondary "tools" or motivational materials business, rather than with the core Amway business itself.

Says nothing, it is vague and mildy apologetic. It is totally unsourced and has some POV phrases such as 'less fortunate elements'. I will chop it out in a few days unless someone objects. Ashmoo 06:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dick Devos

Dick DeVos is indeed the son of Richard Sr., co-founder of Amway. However, he has not been President for several years, his brother Doug is. I have thus deleted this reference.

I think the whole section on the DeVos families supposed religious affiliations should be deleted. If true, and I have no idea, it might be appropriate for articles on the people, but not a company they own.

MLM movie and TV spoofs

There is a 2005 movie which will get additional attention in October called "Believe." The official web site is here. A 1989 episode of Married... with Children called "A Three Job, No Income Family" also spoofs MLM.

Anti-Amway E-book?

A while ago, I had an anti-amway e-book on my computer, written by an ex-emerald in the corporation. I wish to show it to a friend who is considering joing Amway. Unfortunatly, I can't remember the name of the book. Does anyone know what it was called or have a link? The suicide forest 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're probably talking about Merchants of Deception by Eric Scheibeler. You might want to also get your friend to get another side of the story at The Truth About Amway. Scheibeler has some valid issues, but they are virtually all about the individuals he worked with, not Amway. If your friend is considering working with people like that, then he should certainly reconsider. But if he's working with people who treat it professionally and ethically, maybe you should join too :-) --Insider201283 00:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate it greatly.

The site is blocked at my work, so I'll look into it at home. Again, thank you very much. The suicide forest 13:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Family relationships

There is a problem with this sentence, but I don't know how to fix it.

"Former Amway CEO Richard DeVos as well as his wife Betsy DeVos, son (and former Alticor CEO) Dick DeVos, and other members of the DeVos family are heavily connected with the dominionist political movement in the U.S."

Betsy DeVos is the wife of DICK DeVos. Dick DeVos' mother, and Richard DeVos' wife, is Helen. However, I didn't want to change the sentence because I don't know whether it's Helen, or Betsy, or both who the author of the sentence meant to reference.

links to network21?

can someone add a section in regards to relationships to network21 or, head over to the Network 21 'article' and contribute information to that so it isnt so blatantly pro-NM!?

lol! There's nothing in that article that is not correct, if that makes it "blatantly pro-NM" then take it up with the facts. If you have some facts and sources that say something different, feel free to edit it. --Insider201283 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Amway is linled to arms smuggling narcotics smuggling by using Amway and Quixstar as a front.

Anti-Amway ebook

for The suicide forest and anyone else who is interested, the book 'Merchants of Deception" can be downloaded for free here :- http://www.merchantsofdeception.com/DOWNLOADBOOK.html It's long at 318 pages but so far I've found it a rip-roaring yarn, an excellent read. So far (I'm at about page 70) he quotes extensively from the actual course materials etc, and there's no criticism of individuals but of Amway's documented working methods and policies. It reads like a novel but I also believe himMerkinsmum 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have no understanding of the Amway business model at all - which just goes to show how badly this wikipedia article needs rewriting :-/. The first 70 pages of MOD have not a single mention of any of Amway's "documented methods and policies". Not one. It's all about how some individuals are running their independent amway businesses. --Insider201283 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The link another user gave you is for a pro-Amway site, as you can see if you view it:)Merkinsmum 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

. I did say to get "another side of the story" to MoD --Insider201283 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only is it Pro-Amway, Insider is the owner of the site. All you have to do is track the username he uses on the Quixtar Blog Forums to the one he uses here and on the Qblog Forums there is a thread that says it is his site. He has just changed his name on the site to IBOFightBack. So it's not another side of the story, it is his view of the story. He was not involved at all. Independent patriot 07:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Yep. insider's website is just his opinionated propaganda. :D

Claiming that the individual business owners/uplines act independently is a device used by Amway to try and avoid legal and other repercussions and responsibilities. In actual fact the methods used by Amway are highly standardised, to the point of being controllingMerkinsmum 09:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

8 years as an IBO and apart from the original contract, Amway has never once told me what to do. Indeed, apart from a monthly magazine I've rarely ever had any Amway-initiated contact. Yeah, that's "controlling"! Your comment betrays your ignorance of the business model and how it works. --Insider201283 11:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the actual book before going against it. The author spend over a decade in Amway hell and the description is pretty chilling. I guess I don't get it why such semi-criminal cults have to be discussed so neutrally, but the book should be definetly added to the book list, no ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.115.158 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The A-word

Yes but what are you calling 'Amway'? I expect you have plenty of contact with your 'upline' and he gives you plenty of 'advice.' And you probably have some tapes or books and such, you may even have to buy them on a regular basis. Lots of people attend the seminars, which frequently hide that they are Amway. Amway avoid the 'A-word' because otherwise newcomers, potential 'IBOs' and others would not want anything to do with itMerkinsmum 12:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Amway is Amway Corporation quite obviously. My upline is not Amway. As for tapes and books I don't *have* to buy anything, but I chose to, just like I chose to buy text books at university, or kiyosaki CDs, or whatever. I've been to some Amway seminars, butthe seminars I go to regularly are not run by Amway or endorsed by Amway, they are run by another company, Network TwentyOne. Amway doesn't talk to newcomers or potential IBOs, and neither does Network TwentyOne - IBOs do that, so you claim that "Amway avoid the 'A-word'" is completely nonsensical. Some IBOs might do that, but they are not Amway. The I stands for "independent", they run their businesses however they want. Some of them run it in ways that give the Amway "brand" a bad name. I wish they didn't. --Insider201283 14:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hunh. So what you are saying that it works sort of like, I dunno, a pyramid, this scheme?

Ja-Ri Corporation

Merger sounds sensible, but this article needs a history section added to include the info on Ja-Ri. --Insider201283 21:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn you know Amway is involved with illegal drug muggling and narcotics violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.64.184 (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS - Major Rewrite and Sourcing necessary

80% of this article is unsourced POV and 10% of the rest is sources that fail WP:RS badly.

Also a problem with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight --Insider201283 05:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Political/Causes Culture

Commentators have often identified Amway as supporting the U.S. Republican Party

Which commentators? Might be true, but needs sourcing.

However, Amway Corporation claims to support no political party.

Is this true? Not sure with regards the company itself, but it is true regards the business opportunity. No sourcing.

Many of Amway's best-known distributors, including Dexter Yager, have also declared themselves Republicans.

Many? What's the source for that? Relevance? Amway is not even operating in North America and even when it did the great majority of IBOs were not Americans and have not been for decades. Very ethnocentric.

in June 1989 the United Nations Environmental Program's Regional Office for North America recognized it for its contributions to the cause of the environment.

POV non-WP:RS source, should be using [5]

Some senior distributors have been known to promote a world view encompassing Judeo-Christian values, and a general advocacy of boomer/50s values. Their training organisations', AMO's, perception of the role of women, though, always includes successful women in awards, recognition and speaking engagements. One rarely, if ever, sees a male, married distributor speak on stage without his wife getting equal billing, and explaining her active role in the business. This is a reflection of the AMOs' strong advocacy of the 1950s style nuclear family model. Amway rules forbid promotion of any particular politicial or religious position within distributor organisations; however, enforcement of this rule has not been strict.

Entire section POV and unsourced

Doug Wead, who was a Special Assistant to former U.S. President George H. W. Bush, is a successful IBO who is a regular speaker at group rallies.

Factual, but needs sourcing. www.dougwead.com probably is useful.

Amway cofounder, the late Jay Van Andel (in 1980), and later his son Steve Van Andel (in 2001) were elected by the board of directors of the United States Chamber of Commerce as chairman of that organization.

Factual, but needs sourcing.

In May of 2005, former Amway President Dick DeVos, one of the wealthiest and largest charitable givers in Michigan, announced that he would run against Governor Jennifer Granholm in Michigan's 2006 gubernatorial election. DeVos won 42% of the popular vote, while Granholm won 56%.

needs sourcing. Was he President or CEO? Also relevance needs to be included - eg the fact that Amway investment in China was an issue. As it's written - who cares?

Former Amway CEO Richard DeVos as well as his son (and former Alticor CEO) Dick DeVos and daughter-in-law Betsy DeVos, and other members of the DeVos family are heavily connected with the dominionist political movement in the U.S.[5][6] The DeVos foundation is one of the single largest donors to specifically dominionist political groups in the U.S.;[7][8] Betsy DeVos' mother Elsa Prince Broekhuizen is both major financial contributor to dominionist causes and a voting board member of the "Religious Right" group Focus on the Family.[9][10] Other members of the DeVos family known to be involved in rightwing politics include Betsy DeVos's brother Erik Prince, CEO of the controversial military contractor Blackwater USA[11]. Richard DeVos himself is known to be a member of the secretive Council for National Policy, an invitation-only group that is a "think tank" for both dominionist and Neoconservative groups.[12][13][14][15][16]

Relevance? Should be in articles on the people, not here. Very POV plus virtually every source fails WP:RS.

Multiple high-ranking Amway leaders, including Richard DeVos, Dexter Yager, and others are also owners and members of the board of Gospel Films, a producer of movies and books geared towards conservative Christians as well as co-owner (along with Salem Communications) of Gospel Communications.[17]

POV source fails WP:RS. Naming but two of literally "thousands" of leaders, many of whom aren't even christians (see chinese and indian markets for example) provides a very unbalanced view of the company and it's leaders.

Legal rulings

In 1983, Amway, headed by Richard DeVos, pleaded guilty to tax evasion and customs fraud in Canada, resulting in a fine of $25 million CAD, the largest fine ever imposed in that country.

Needs sourcing

Quixtar

Amivo acts as an Amway subsidiary in Europe.

Factually incorrect, Amivo is merely the name of the website, unlike the US Amivo remains part of Amway as is obvious from any Amivo homepage. Quixtar-Amway relationship and changeover also requires better explanation.

Amway (and its American online incarnation, Quixtar) have been controversial due to allegations that these companies are pyramid schemes or cults

Unsourced POV

Controversy

Typically, IBOs spend money on tapes, books, and seminars which are promoted to IBOs as the preferred way to learn the "business skills of the IBOs" and to maintain their desire to build their business.

Unsourced and factually incorrect. In reality "typical" IBOs spend no money on any of these things. Very few IBOs spend money on BSM - Business Support Materials.

Typically, IBOs spend money on tapes, books, and seminars which are promoted to IBOs as the preferred way to learn the "business skills of the IBOs" and to maintain their desire to build their business. These are not provided by Amway itself but organizations often described as Amway Motivational Organizations (AMO) in general run by people in the higher ranks of the organization. One example of an AMO is Crown Ambassador Dexter Yager's organization, the International Dreambuilders' Association/Digital Alliance (usually simply referred to by the abbreviation IDA), one of the largest and most widely-known AMOs. Claims regarding the support material (known as "tools" in AMO parlance) range from "can be of help to an IBO " to some organizations claiming they "are absolutely required" to "build a big business". However, investigations like one done by Dateline NBC in April 2003 (this episode aired in 2004) suggested that most of the money being earned by these successful individuals was coming from the hidden "tools" business rather than through selling the company products. Critics also claim that the materials are specifically geared towards encouraging IBOs to continue working for a non-economic return, rather than improving their actual business skills. Proponents of the materials claim that the "tools" business is the best way to develop a large business, because every person in their organization can get the same information (as opposed to the results achieved by "playing telephone" as a child, where one person passes a message onto another, to another, etc). Proponents note that many IBOs with large numbers of people in their organization cannot possibly spend the required time teaching every single person without taking time away from their family or job or other responsibilities.

POV, No sourcing for the majority of the claims. Dateline NBC investigation was in to one group within one Quixtar organisation, not Amway which no longer even operated in the US in 2003. The investigation is dealt with in the article on Quixtar, which is where it belongs.

As noted above, several groups — usually ex-Amway members, but also some groups associated with the anti-cult movement — have expressed concern that tactics of AMOs may constitute cult-like activity. Steven Hassan's Freedom of Mind Institute, that monitors potentially abusive groups, lists the practices of AMOs as potentially abusive according to his "BITE" Model of mind control. [1] Other exit counseling organizations that have expressed concern with the activities of AMOs in practice include FACTnet,[20] Cult Awareness and Information Centre (Australia),[21] and others. The Rick Ross Institute, keeps a collection of related material in its website. [2] Sources are highly POV and discredited by most mainstream academia and invalid WP:RS and WP:COI as sources. They are professional "cult busters" who charge thousands a day to "save" people. See http://www.slate.com/?id=2061166 for a quick overview.

Other recommended changes

1. There is virtually no proper information on the role of PDPs - Professional Development Programs. Yager Internet Services/IDA is mentioned, however his is just one of literally dozens of independent companies providing PDPs to Amway IBOs. The term "AMO" is POV and misleading and was created by an Amway critic - in reality "motivation" is only one small part of what they do.

2. As mentioned the Amway/Quixtar relationship needs to be explained properly. Amway has not existed in the US for several years but still operates globally

3. There is very little mention of Amway history, unique products, endorsements, success stories, philanthropy etc etc. Apart from the UNEP award it has for example been labelled a "global superbrand". It's products have won numerous awards and a notable for a number of technological and historical reasons.

4. Little mention is made about international markets and expansion - which is 100% of Amway these days. The article as it stands is virtually entirely historical (and onesided at that) and completely ignores the last decade. Much of it belongs in the "urban myth" category.

5. Very ethnocentric and POV, when controversy is discussed it is unsourced and focuses on individuals and groups without providing context. Dexter Yager is for example but one of around 70 Crown Ambassadors and the "AMO" he runs is not even the largest. There is a large focus on the christian beliefs over the founders and some IBOs like Yager, when in reality it is likely the majority of IBOs are not even Christian and Amway rules explictly talk about "the right to differ".

--Insider201283 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that list. Regarding the last section, "Other recommended changes", can you recommend sources we could use to source that material? Is there a good "History of Amway", or a reference to PDPs? -Will Beback · † · 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article I wrote sometime back - http://www.thetruthaboutquixtar.com/index.php/content/view/1763/90 gives you the history but it is not sourced to wikipedia standards. Nice for getting a handle on it though. Most of it's information is from Alticor.com, amway.com, amway-europe.com and books like James W. Robinson's "Empire of Freedom: The Amway Story and What It means to You". The latter is independently researched and written. PDP information is available on http://www.ibofacts.com. Unfortunately the corp in the US has in recent years focused on developing websites targeted towards Quixtar, so sites like that are NA-centric and don't directly refer to Amway, thus while the concepts are relevant the actual information is not always accurate for Amway. Books like Empire of Freedom have independent information on various PDPs. I'm not aware of any decent collation of material on PDPs online apart from what is happening on quixtarwiki.com (which is poorly named now - it has more info on amway than quixtar!). I've been trying to collate a list of different PDPs and have been learning about more and more. At present I've identified more than 30. Quixtarwiki still only has US based ones. I'll see what I can come up with re sources, but it's a large job, which is why I'd previously done little editing to this article. The existing unsourced POV stuff should not be allowed to remain as it is though. --Insider201283 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, you'll need to delink that link, I don't know how. --Insider201283 20:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-arranged the material (with few textual changes) to get it more into chronological order, and to keep topics together better. It does need a re-write, some consolidation, and more sources.

Quixtar should come quite early, before it's mentioned in other sections. --Insider201283 08:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a mention to the intro. -Will Beback · † · 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Foley v. Luster

• In a related lawsuit initiated by the distributors involved, the Court established that Mahaleel Lee Luster, who had been contracted to make the videotapes, had violated copyright without the knowledge of Amway or the Amway distributors and was solely responsible for the copyright infringements. Foley v Luster

I've read over the opinion twice now and I still don't see where it says that Amway (or even the distributors) had no knowledge of the copyright violation. I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps someone can point out where this is stated? -Will Beback · † · 07:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In the case - "Luster argues that it was error to instruct the jury that “[v]icarious liability arises when someone, without knowledge that the activity infringes a copyright, has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and a financial interest in the activity.”". In other words he was trying to defend himself by claiming they were also guilty even though they didn't know the "activity infringes a copyright". The court said - "The district court made clear that if the jury found that Luster was not completely responsible for the copyright infringement, it would have to find for Luster." If they'd known about the infringement then Luster obviously would have argued in that direction. I'm no lawyer either, but I'm pretty certain that if you employ somebody to do something, knowing they are violating copyright, then you will have some liability. --Insider201283 08:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Further - "and not based on any direct or contributory infringement by the Plaintiffs themselves." Knowledge that what a contracted party is doing is illegal without stopping them is contributory.--Insider201283 08:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is not entirely correct. The case in the link was an appeal by Luster from an earlier suit where the jury "found for Luster on the claims of two distributors, where they apparently believed that Luster was not entirely at fault." The original suit was brought by five distributors: "At the trial, cross-claimants included the Foleys, the Andersons, the Haugens, the Gooches, and the Grabills. Luster successfully defended the claims brought by the Foleys and the Gooches, so only the verdicts in favor of the Andersons, Haugens, and Grabills are at issue in this appeal."

Thus, some of the distributors did have knowledge of what Luster was doing. As for Amway, they were not a party to this particular suit and the court made no opinion whatsoever on whether Amway had any knowledge of what Luster was doing. The Wiki article should be changed accordingly. DonIncognito 16:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Amway wasn't a plaintiff in the case, so "and not based on any direct or contributory infringement by the Plaintiffs themselves" would not apply to the company. This material appears to involve a lot of interpretation of a primary source. Since Amway wasn't a party to the suit, I don't think it is really relevant here. -Will Beback · † · 18:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that re the distributors involved. We really need the orginal case/appeals to work this one out. The case cited is actually Foley v Luster, so it would appear Foley was cleared too, leaving only Gooch with any kind of liability, and we don't know whether he appealed either or the result of any of that. How it stands is possible not correct (3 of 5? why not 4 of 5? Could even be 5 of 5?) but it's not that important, I'm happy enough with it's current from. --Insider201283 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Marital dispute

• In September 2006 police in India raided Amway offices in nine cities seeking evidence that the corporation operated as an illegal chain-scheme.CID raids Amway offices, seizes documents, The Hindu, September 26, 2006</ref>. The case was immediately dismissed by the High Court and it was revealed the allegations came about from a marital dispute.Amway Back to Business in State, Times of India,September 30, 2006</ref>

This appears to amount to nothing. Any objections to omitting it entirely, pending other developments? -Will Beback · † · 08:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

remove it. never should have been added in the first place, as even cursory research shows. You seem to be sourcing a bit too much of your info from POV sites Will. --Insider201283 08:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize Google was a POV site. -Will Beback · † · 18:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What terms were you googling for? I'm struggling to find any that only get the first news story, not the ones following the next day. --Insider201283 11:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall now. -Will Beback · † · 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

eCoupled/eSpring

Did you research eCoupled before declaring this "puffery"? This is a major new technology, the first product using it is "notable" in my opinion. Google "eCoupled" and you'll find a huge number of hits all resulting from a press release only a few days old.--Insider201283 11:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, esprings is the only product to use the ecoupled technology, at the moment. So to say that it "was the first commercial product using new eCoupled wireless power induction technology," does not appears helpful. When a second product uses it then it will be a worthwhile assertion. -Will Beback · † · 05:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Which will be in 6 days. You're being overly pedantic. --Insider201283 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional website. Pedanticism is valued here. The article is still under construction. As eCoupled becomes a more prominent product with more outside sources we'll add more information about it. -Will Beback · † · 07:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing tags

{Self-published}, {POV-section}, and {SectOR} tags have been aded to the "Politics and culture" and "Controversy" sections. Can we discuss here what problems there are with those sections? -Will Beback · † · 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Most are already mentioned above. Just check the sourcing, virtually all fail WP:RS. Mind you, given you considered the self-published CV of one of the people running one of the self-published sites as a valid source ... well, I'm not sure you're the person to be discussing this with, Will. Nevertheless ...

Cult References

Rick Ross's, Steve Hassan's, and CAIC websites do not pass WP:RS. None of the website proprietors have recognized "Scholarly" qualifications. All are partisan with obvious biases - they charge hundreds even thousands of dollars to "save" people from purported cults, none of the sites have editorial oversight and their claims "are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" (see http://www.slate.com/?id=2061166 for a journalistic overview). I'm a psychologist, I have more qualifications in this area then these folk. When I engaged Rick Ross in a discussion on the topic as it applies to amway he didn't address any of the issues I raised and simply kept accusing me of being brainwashed! Read that salon article for the prevailing academic view on that kind of rubbish.

The section also has a self-published ebook as a source, and the last claims re Amway China are flat out wrong the way they are termed and POV. It claims for example a ban "on all pyramid schemes including Amway". Amway isn't a pyramid scheme (see FTC v Amway), and China cracked down on all direct selling. The paragraph also includes "original research" in it's interpretation of the news article, which is posted on the fails WP:RS rickross site (a self-published site as a secondary source in other words). If the China situation is to be addressed (and I see no reason why it shouldn't), there's a multitude of WP:RS sources for it. This is just link spamming.

Politics & Culture

First paragraph has no source. The whole "dominionist" stuff seems to be OR, sources 22 and 23 are blogs. I don't even know what the relevance of the founders sons sisters brother is to the article? Give me a break. Madsen Report as a source? I'm a lefty and even I don't go that far. Heck, even DailyKos won't accept him as a source. I haven't checked all of them, but virtually every source for this "dominionsit" stuff seems to fail WP:RS. The enviroment section should be better sourced, and indeed I think perhaps deserves it's own section as it's a vital part of Amway's "notability" - biodegradeable cleaners, UNEP NA award, Nutrilite organic farms etc etc.

I found a new link for the UNEP award and have added it. -- Knverma 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against the "cult" allegations being addressed in someway, even Amway brings it up on their site, but the current version fails WP:RS and is very POV. IMO the only reason Amway has had to address them is primarily a result of the Internet Echo Chamber effect. This article, POV, failed WP:RS and all, is "echoed" all over the place for example. The politics of the owners I don't think is that relevant, since pushing political viewpoints is explicitly against the rules. The largest groups in Amway today aren't even christian, let alone "dominionist". If anywhere it should be discussed in articles about the DeVos's, not in one about a company they own. It would make as little sense in an article on the Orlando Magic. --Insider201283 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

some of the quoted references, eg 26, don't even mention Amway or the DeVos or Van Andel families - bit of a hint of OR going on there don't you think? --Insider201283 02:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hassan, Ross, and the CAIC are used in many articles as sources. Further, they are used as primary sources for their own opinions. I agree that the "Merchants of Deception" is not a reliable site for our purposes.

They shouldn't be used anywhere in Wikipedia, the obviously fail WP:RS, which you haven't addressed. Just because other articles are poorly sourced doesn't excuse them. They are particularly good at self-promotion. As mentioned, you consider Rick Ross's CV to be a valid source, so I'd suggest you have a bias here and are not the best judge. The APA and courts have made the position on the Singer/Lifton model they use clear - it has no basis. What's more, Amway doesn't even fit that model! They fail NPOV. They fail Editorial oversight. The "are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". They fail "Self-published sources". Given all of this, and the fact that they personally have no experience with Amway, and are thus secondary sources, what's your justification for including their opinions over any other opinions? --Insider201283 03:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What's this about Ross' CV? Where did I say what about it? Ross and Hassan are known and recognized authorities on cults. Experts are permitted to self-publish. The article does not endorse their opinions, we just report them, the same as we do in many other articles. They are primary sources for their own opinions, not secondary sources for objective truths about Amway. Also, it's usually preferred on Wikipedia talk pages to avoid interleaving comments. Otherwise it quickly becomes confusing for folks who come later. -Will Beback · † · 08:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You linked to Ross's CV as your source for the RIAA stuff. Ross and Hassan are NOT recognized authorities on cults by scholarly sources. They get themselves in the media and on the internet and spout stuff that is not considered valid by legitimate experts in the field. While some courts have allowed them as expert witnesses in the past, many courts have also disallowed them. Their theories are based on the theories of Margaret Singer and Robert Lifton, and these theories are considered discredited by the great bulk of academia in the area. Uri Geller is a recognized "expert" by the public on psychic powers too - doesn't mean he's not a fraud. Now, I don't think Hassan and Ross are "frauds" per se - I think they believe in what they say - it's just they're obsessives who write themselves up in pseudo-scientific manner and people believe it. The Internet has allowed folk like Ross and Hassan to popularise their theories despite them having no evidential basis whatsoever. The bizarre thing is of course that Amway doesn't even fit the theories they espouse. But the more "cults" there are the better, because that's how they make their money. I recommend you read The University of Virginia's Professor Steve Haddan's website for a scholarly review of the area. I quote from that article - "All of the so-called "cult experts" speak a language that purports to be scientific, but there is very little empirical evidence to support the large majority of their claims. But as frequently happens in politics, evidence can be overwhelmed by smooth rhetoric." He addresses the sources you want to consider "experts" here. As another example, The Cult Awarness Network Australia site, also cited, was started by a student and former Jehovah's Witness at the University of Queensland in Australia, who forced her to remove it from her UQ student account as people were claiming a University connection that did not exist. I know - I was on faculty at that University at the time. Apart from a handful of exceptions, your "experts" are only recognized as such by people who are not. Now, I'm an atheist, so I'm no fan of any religious movement, but these two guys should not be accepted as "expert sources" for any article in wikipedia. Anyone who accepts them has been conned. --Insider201283 23:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I never cited Ross' CV much less defended it as a reliable source. I did cite the CV of Robert FitzPatrick, an expert in his own right:[6]

• Robert L. FitzPatrick is an expert in examining and revealing deception and fraud in bogus home-based businesses. He is an author, teacher and internationally recognized authority in multi-level marketing schemes and pyramid sales fraud. He is a catalyst and leader in the international effort to end the pervasive fraud in the multi-level marketing business.

It was the best source for the RIAA settlement that I could find late at night and the next day we found a better source. Regarding Hassan, he has testified before the U.S. Congress as an expert witness. That's good enough for Wikipedia. Several of the cult-watching groups have disagreements with each other, but those are not for us to settle. -Will Beback · † · 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Fitzpatrick is another self-declared expert, I get them confused :-). Hassan testified before a congress subcommitee nearly 30 years ago regarding his personal experience with the Unification Church - not as an expert on anything apart from that. He's not even mentioned in the copy of the congressional report he has own his own site. I grant he may be considered an expert witness on his own experiences. What's the relevance to this article? --Insider201283 00:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hang on ... did I understand this correctly? Did you just quote Robert Fitzpatrick's own CV from his website as a source for declaring him an expert?!?!?! --Insider201283 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the blog references should be removed. The family of the founders seem to have related ownership of the companies, so they are not automatically irrelevant. Their connection should be established before they are introduced. The Dominionist material needs better connections as well. -Will Beback · † · 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of Ross' website is a database of press clippings. It is accurate and useful, but the individual entries are copyright violations. Therefore Wikipedia should not link to those pages directly. I've swapped out the references. With those out the article now only says that Ross maintains a file on Amway, by way of generally sourcing the fact that some regard it as having aspects of a cult group. (He's also got a shorter file on Herbalife[7]). -Will Beback · † · 08:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Still got the China claims (Amway was banned for being a pyramid scheme - completely false - all direct selling was banned.) and links to ross copyright violations. You have also not addressed the issue of Ross and Hassan websites not passing WP:RS. I have provided you with links to academically published acknowledged scholarly experts in the field dismissing their work as having no basis and essentially self promotion. --Insider201283 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that prevents us from using Hassan, Ross, et al., as sources. If you want to add some ad hominem attacks on the sources we can put in something minimal. We've removed the direct links to copyright violations. -Will Beback · † · 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: It'd be much better to provide, instead of attacks on Hassan and Ross, some rebuttals to their viewpoints. Do any Amway followers deny that it is a cult? If so let's quote them. -Will Beback · † · 06:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for deleting the link to Eric Scheibeler's site. On the other hand it is fair to point to the claims of so many former high level distributors (emeralds and diamonds). I can provide more such sites if needed. Knverma 08:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could say something like "many former high level distributors make such and such claims". Knverma 09:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If we have sources for them saying so then we can add some appropriate text to summarize their viewpoints. -Will Beback · † · 22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

the claim of "many" I think needs to be put in the appropriate context. For example, some Amway fact sheets from 2004 (I don't have an english link sorry) state there have been more than 4000 people qualified at Diamond and above. Include Emeralds and you literally have tens of thousands. What qualifies as "many" in that context? 10? 100? 1000? To the best of my knowledge the "high level distributors" making such "claims" have been less than 20 or 30. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge virtually all of those distributors have been associated with just one "line of sponsorship" and "system" within A/Q. If you understand the business model this is highly relevant and would need to be included. All of this (both sides) is difficult to properly source from a WP:RS perspective and without OR. At least one of these former "high level" distributor, Bo Short, is cited in the MSNBC Dateline episode and the allegations already included. --Insider201283 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

By "many" I definitely didn't mean thousands (even if thousands may have complaints, at least I don't have sources). If all complaints are in a particular LOS, that can be documented. Basically the point is that among the former distributors who complain and in the lawsuits that are filed, there is a very common pattern of allegations, which is why it is worth documenting. --

Knverma 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be documented without original research. Actually, I'm not sure the initial claims of "many" can be either. But for your own enlightenment I recommend you check which "system" virtually all of the IBOs involved in lawsuits are affiliated with. You also might want to check QuixtarWiki, for example the list of Crown Ambassadors, to get an idea of different organizations sizes. This Wikipedia Amway article I think at one stage even claimed Bill Britt was one of only two Crown Ambassadors! That's how "ignorant" the world is of the rest of Amway that seems to happily operate under the radar. Have a look for example at the size on Network TwentyOne and see if you can find any lawsuits, or even substantive complaints. They got sued once for breaking copyright of a book. The grandson of the author admitted it was his fault. That's pretty much been it. --Insider201283 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that most lawsuits are against Britt/Yager systems and N21 has been rather clean, then I will be most happy to mention that. On the other hand, please be careful about strong claims about N21 being very different from other systems. You could be accused of COI (I am not disputing anything, I am merely asking you to be careful, and to consider the possibility of accusations). If quixtarwiki is wrong, I will pay less attention to them in future. Or may be their information is old, remember that N21 is rather new compared to Britt/Yagers. And I have clarified the word "many", I will definitely admit to the possibility that the number of former diamonds who make accusations is "very less" compared to the number of current diamonds. I never had any illusions on this issue . And I am not claiming their accusations to be true, I am only claiming that the accusations are essentially the same in all the different cases.-- Knverma 10:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If the world is "ignorant" of N21, don't worry, I am interested in documenting N21 also besides Britt. We have another reason to provide some solid documentation to remove their "ignorance". Regarding sizes, I have not yet checked the situation in other countries. But according to quixtarwiki (again correct if they are wrong) N21 has something like 3-4 diamonds in India. The number of Britt diamonds in India (counting the breakaway WI group) might be a dozen or a few dozens, I have to check. If you have precise figures from other countries, let us know. -- Knverma 11:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Amway China

The newly added paragraph about Amway China is written POV, implies Amway is a pyramid schemes, uses invalid sources (self-published website copies of news articles) and implies Amway was specifically banned when it was all direct-selling organisations. [8]http://www.mlive.com/business/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/business-3/116693763565130.xml&coll=7 --Insider201283 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this link is important and provides newer information which I was going to add. Remember it is dated 2006 where as the other article is dated 2003, so this information should be included. Some new direct-selling laws have probably been created after that 2003 article, but I don't have details. Usage of the term "pyramid scheme" could be inappropriate. On the other hand, it does not imply that Amway was specifically banned. It says that all pyramid schemes including Amway was banned. And of course this article is about Amway so we need to mention Amway. -- Knverma 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Pyramid Schemes were not banned. From my understanding they were already illegal in China. Direct selling was what was banned. To say "pyramid schemes including Amway was banned" is simply false and misleading. --Insider201283 02:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the section to address your concerns and added the new info and source. -Will Beback · † · 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See also the beginning of Talk:Multi-level marketing. Is there some source for the claim that pyramids were banned before 1995 or 1998? Also further clarification on terminology seems necessary. FTC distinguishes between "mlm" and "illegal pyramids". But are "illegal pyramids" and "(legal) pyramids" same or different? Has some authority defined these? The articles say that China cracked down on pyramids in 1998. But Amway was working under its usual rules between 1995 and 1998. Also China (at least at that time) did not give separate treatments to "mlm" and "legal/illegal pyramid". Also what are the latest Chinese direct-selling laws? The articles I have seen don't talk about it. -- Knverma 11:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding pyramid schemes, one of the sourdces says:

• That system came into question in 1998, when Chinese officials cracked down on pyramid schemes and tarred direct-sales companies with the same brush. Though companies like Amway say their model is vastly different -- their revenue comes from sales of real products, among other differences -- officials saw no distinction. The State Council, China's cabinet, banned all forms of such sales in a harshly worded notice that accused some companies of promoting "evil cults, secret societies, and superstitious and lawless activities.". "Once-barred Amway becomes booming business in China", Leslie Chang, March 12, 2003, Wall Street Journal

I think our text summarizes this in a reasonable fashion. How can we do better? -Will Beback · † · 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

here are some other sources we could use. [9] [10] [11][12][13]. -Will Beback · † · 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So according to the first link, Amway got the direct-selling licence in (end of) 2005 and not 2006. My question about the latest laws is now answered. Direct selling is now allowed but MLM (sales people recruiting other sales people) is not allowed. And it is clear that in 1998, China mainly had problems with MLMs and pyramid schemes but it decided to put direct-selling companies also into the same category. Currently we say that all MLMs and pyramids including Amway were banned. I think one of Insider201283's concern was that we should also mention that direct selling was banned. I suggest saying that "MLM, pyramid schemes and direct-selling companies, including Amway" were banned. -- Knverma 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As is obvious from the sources, the ban was against direct selling. This included door-to-door sales, pyramid schemes, network marketing, anything like that. The concern was with pyramid schemes, and (not for the first time) the Chinese government simply shutdown all direct marketing companies and then progressively relicensed those they did not consider to be pyramid schemes. If you insist on including "pyramid scheme" in the wording, which seems to be the case, what you could say, using the sources provided is something like -

"In 1998, in an effort to crack down on illegal pyramid schemes (many of which had attempted to disguise themselves as multi-level marketing companies) the Chinese Government enacted a ban on all direct selling. Legitimate companies such as Amway, Avon, and Mary Kay continued to operate through a network of retail stores promoted by authorised agents. In December 2006 Amway was one of the first companies to receive a government licence to resume direct selling activities." --Insider201283 20:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The first line would suggest that China dislikes illegal pyramids but is OK with MLM. That is not the case (so it does not think the way FTC does). The new laws allow direct selling but not MLM. -- Knverma 20:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Which source says that pyramid schemes disguised themselves as MLMs? -Will Beback · † · 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How about -

"In 1998, in an effort to crack down on illegal pyramid schemes (which many people reportedly found hard to differentiate from legal direct selling) the Chinese Government enacted a ban on all direct selling. Legitimate companies such as Amway, Avon, and Mary Kay continued to operate through a network of retail stores promoted by authorised "non-employee" representatives. In December 2006 Amway was one of the first companies to receive a government licence to resume direct selling activities."[14] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Insider201283 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't really have much against this wording except the concern that if we make any indirect suggestions then we should be sure of sourcing. Are we suggesting that all direct selling was banned because people found it hard to distinguish it from pyramids? Well people/citizens may find it hard to distinguish the two, but was that the reason for the ban? "1 December 2005" and not "December 2006" I guess? "Legitimate companies such as ..." reflect our thinking about legitimacy, but laws are different in each country, and they continued during this meantime also due to some negotiations (see the WSJ 2003 article). "non-employee representatives"? The 2003 WSJ article says that Amway offered two legal schemes: either people apply to become formal employees or they apply to the government for individual business licenses. Always, if we create our own words instead of picking lines from the articles, then we run into problems. "... one of the first countries ..." is factually correct and can be kept to make it positive for Amway. Otherwise the (3?) companies could be named. And remember the statements (in the 2003 WSJ article) regarding Amway not significantly changing its bonus scheme and government officials maintaining silence on the issue, that still deserves some mention. -- Knverma 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The crossed out text above should read "... one of the first companies ...". -- Knverma 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

the "non-employee representatives" was a phrase used in one of the articles. Amway etc are explictly called legal, so calling them "legitimate" doesn't require any interpretation on our part. Amway got it's direct selling licence December 5, 2006. If I recall correctly the ban was lifted a year earlier, with licences to be issues, but licences were not actually issued for a year, something like that. I think there was one company who announced they got a licence on December 1 and Amway and Avon annonuced on Dec. 5. I don't recall who was first and haven't time to google right now. --Insider201283 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, what's our source for saying that "many people reportedly found [illegal pyramid schemes] hard to differentiate from legal direct selling"? It's not in the source you list. -Will Beback · † · 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I only listed what I thought was a source necessary in addition to the ones you had already provided. "Many consumers are confused by (the difference between) direct and pyramid sales," says Liu Junhai, director of the China Consumers Association. [15]--Insider201283 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's close, though the wording you propose implies the confusion was a cause, which the source doesn't exactly say. We should also say that MLM-type reimbursements are not allowed. How about:

• In 1998, after abuses of illegal pyramid schemes led to riots, the Chinese Government enacted a ban on all direct selling. Companies such as Amway, Avon, and Mary Kay continued to operate through a network of retail stores promoted by authorised "non-employee" representatives. In December 2006 Amway was one of the first companies to receive a government licence to resume direct selling activities, though multi-level payments are still forbidden.

Does that cover everything? Should we add something about the number of store, employees, and total sales? -Will Beback · † · 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

number of stores, sales etc are not really the important issues here, although I have nothing against their inclusion, it might provide the information that China provides a big percentage of the global sales. Yes, I checked that one article mentions Amway's plans about "non-employee representatives" although another one talked about two the two schemes I mentioned above. The above wording seems more or less factually correct to me. If you prefer not to include the statements about "not altering payment schemes" then I will not insist on it. -- Knverma 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact the second last link by Will does say that the confusion between direct selling and pyramid schemes was the cause of the ban. So if anyone wants to include this statement then I have no objections. -- Knverma 11:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's finalize this one, I was waiting to first recheck all the China articles. Considering the sales volume of Amway China (more than Quixtar's) we shouldn't hesitate to spend some more lines to clearly explain the China situation. How about:

Amway grew quickly in China starting in 1995. After abuses of illegal pyramid schemes led to riots, the Chinese Government enacted a ban on all direct selling in 1998. After negotiations, some companies like Amway, Avon, and Mary Kay continued to operate through a network of retail stores promoted by an independent sales force. Although multi-level payments were banned, it is alleged that Amway didn't significantly alter its pay scheme, and justified them as payments for services. In December 2005, China enacted new direct-selling laws, and in December 2006 Amway was one of the first companies to receive a government licence to resume direct selling activities. Multi-level marketing (commissions on sales of new sales persons recruited) is still forbidden. In the year ended August 2005, Amway China had a sales volume of more than $2 billion, almost a third of Alticor's global sales

Any comments? I decided to include the allegations about not altering the pay schemes, because presence or absence of MLM style payments is the main issue in all this, and should be clearly understood.--Knverma 18:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger Suggestion

I strongly urge the Amway and Quixtar pages to be merged. I fear we are going to end up repeating too much material. "Quixtar" is essential the new name of "Amway US/Canada". The former distributors of Amway are now with Quixtar. The lawsuits against them refer to Amway and Quixtar as one entity. The AMOs like those Britt and Yager concern both Amway and Quixtar distributors. If there are no separate pages for Amway UK, Amway China, etc then why a separate page for Amway US (Quixtar)? -- Knverma 12:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no. Amway may by Quixtar in the US, but it's generally Amway in other countries (although the Amway portals may have other names, like Amivo, A2K, etc.) Merging it would be a very American-centric thing to do ... as Amway in other countries (probably amounting to more than Amway US in volume!) have nothing to do with Quixtar.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.134.170.35 (talk • contribs).

I agree with Knverma. The differences between Quixtar and Amway appear to be relatively minor and could be handled in a single short section. They are all owned by one company and have pretty much the same product line and business model. Merging Quixtar into Amway would not be U.S.-centric, just the opposite. Merging in Alticor makes sense too. It's just a holding company and has little identity beyond Amway. -Will Beback · † · 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Amway and Quixtar are completely separate companies and operate as such. If anything you could indeed argue for different articles for each different Amway company in different Amway markets. Different markets have different bonus scales, different qualifications, different products, different rules etc etc etc. Amway China is different to Amway Australia is different to Amway Scandinavia. Merging them would be to effectively dismiss more than 85% of the total Amway/Quixtar business - an INCREDIBLY american-centric thing to do. To claim Alticor is just a holding company "with little identity beyond Amway" is also quite ignorant. Gurwitch and Laura Mercier, Allan James Group, Fulton Innovation, eCoupled, Access Business Group, Amway Grand Plaza Hotels etc etc. Jaguar and Volvo are both owned by Ford and have more in common than, for example, Amway China and Quixtar. --Insider201283 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Analogy with Jaguar and Volvo is good rhetoric, but not very informative. How much information on the Quixtar page currently is not worth including on the Amway page? The talk of american-centricity is just a point of view: we will merge "quixtar into amway" and not "amway into quixtar". There will be a section on the uniqueness of quixtar. -- Knverma 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. Internet Retailer rankings and reports about Quixtar. Quixtar.com sales data. Partner stores. Better Business Bureau. Active income. Percentages of qualifiers. 70% rule. Dateline NBC. Quixtar Accreditation. Quixtar facts site. IBOAI. Paul Harvey. Dr. Phil. All of that stuff isn't relevant to Amway. Amway has no accreditation, no IBO assocation, no "facts" site, many markets I'm aware of have no 70% rule, percentages and average incomes are different in differenet markets. Dr Phil spoke at a Quixtar seminar, never spoken at an Amway seminar to the best of my knowledge. I've no idea who paul harvey is, neither would 99.99% of Amway IBOs, etc etc. Most of the article is specific to Quixtar (or earlier, Amway North America). --Insider201283 23:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't have separate articles on most of Alticor's companies and there's no reason that we should. The reason to contemplate a merge is that there is so much overlapping material. The FTC case, for example, was prosecuted against Amway but is binding on Quixtar. The Dr. Phil matter involves two arms of Alticor. The Dateline NBC case touched on both Quixtar and Amway. The corporate history is one continuum. The key personnel are the same. The Quixtar accreditation seems to be a minor matter, with only one group accredited. All U.S. Amway distributors became Quixtar IBOs. The product lines are mostly the same, the business models are the same, etc. Paul Harvey, IIRC, did advertisements for Amway before doing them for Quixtar (though I doubt he never did them in Australia or Europe, so non-Americans wouldn't have heard of him anyway.) The continuing presence of Amway as a brand name in the U.S. is proven by the recent renaming of the Amway Arena, at a cost of millions. While it'd make for a long article, it'd reduce a considerable amount of duplication and confusion. If I may suggest, let's focus on merging Alticor and Amway first. They are the most easily and naturally combinable. -Will Beback · † · 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are being incredibly American-centric Will, and I pointed out long ago that the Dr Phil matter really had no relevance to Quixtar. The dateline NBC article mentioned Amway just once, it never mentioned any of Amway internationally. The key personnel are not the same. The heads of Amway Australia, Amway Europe, Amway Japan, Amway Russia etc etc etc have never worked for Quixtar. You're again displaying your ignorance, Quixtar Accreditation is a MAJOR matter for the US, and three groups have been accredited, not one. Quixtar PR when asked about the naming of Amway Arena pointed out the widespread televising of the NBA. More people watch the NBA in China than the United States and Amway China just received it's direct-selling licence to move ahead with growth again. That's unlikely just to be a coincidence. If we were talking merging an article on Amway North America and Quixtar then I'd agree. But this article is on Amway. Amway North America has not existed for 5 years, and has been only a small part of Amway for 20 years. Quixtar is a different company with different operations, different marketing, different staff. Quixtar is a billion dollar company in it's own right. Merging the articles makes no sense. --Insider201283 10:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "Amway" appears at least 6 times in the Dateline transcript. And the Amway-Quixtar connection is emphasized at least twice. The key personnel, other than DeVos and Van Andel family, are the top distributors (even if they are not employees). No one is interested in articles about the heads of Amway Australia, Europe, etc. The top distributors in these countries may be important, and if necessary, we can have separate articles for them. I am working on Britt, and at least a few others like Yager may be worthwhile. And we should not have separate articles for BWW (Britt system) US, BWW India, BWW Malaysia etc. Your NBA reasoning is a bit far-fetched. -- Knverma 12:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So you would suggest articles on the top distibutors then. Like Kauru Nakajima, Max & Marianne Schwarz, Dr Peter & Eva Müller-Meerkatz, Dr. Jae-Oh Joo & Kyung-Ja Park, Barri Chi & Holly Chen, Mark Lei for example. None of whom are Quixtar IBOs of any note, if at all, and all of whom have much bigger personal Amway businesses than for example Bill Britt. --Insider201283 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No I won't suggest that. Britt, Yager and Dornan may be fine, not too much more. Further, I don't recommend separate pages for Bill Britt and BWW, one page is enough for both. Just as we already have a page for Network 21 where some information about Dornan can be provided. The point is that most publicly available information about Dornan is in connection with N21. The famous N21 leaders in various countries can be mentioned on the N21 page. Similarly for BWW. If we have a page on AMOs then the list of all the other systems can be provided there. Does that sound reasonable? -- Knverma 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So why only some of the american larger pins and not others? Schwarz & Müller-Meerkatz have half of europe downline of them, and Amway Europe is comparable in size to the US. The asian businesses are just ridiculous. I personally think that kind of information is fine for quixtarwiki.com (which I am encouraging the owners to rename amwayquixtarwiki), but most IBOs, even Yager and Britt, who are the ones who make the most headlines (and not always for good reasons) don't pass "notability" guidelines. I've no problem with factual articles on associated training companies per se, but there's at least 40 that I'm now aware of, which ones get listed and which don't? How is notability decided? I really don't think lists of these companies and leaders has a particular place in wikipedia. In any case, to the original point. Merging Quixtar into Amway makes little sense and there is no reason not to have two articles. They're not the first companies to have common histories and parent companies and they won't be the last. However, the Amway article still needs a lot of cleaning, and the history sections of both can be cleaned up, I would suggest with the Quixtar article referring to the Amway article for more information or similar. --Insider201283 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting articles on the American larger pins. I am suggesting an article on BWW (not particularly Britt) just as we have an article on N21. All these systems operate in several countries, so there is no american-centricity here. The criteria of which systems to include is the number of people in those systems. -- Knverma 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. --Insider201283 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

And consider things like Bill Britt being Quixtar IBO but having downlines in Amway India, Amway Malaysia, etc. His bonus depends on the business of these downlines, am I wrong? So calling them separate companies operating separately is a minor fact that can be summarised in a paragraph. Regarding Alticor, I have not looked into it till now. -- Knverma 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that the Jaguar and Volvo articles should be merged into the Ford article, since Ford makes money from Jaguar and Volvo sales? Most of the Amway world has never heard of Americans like Bill Britt. I never would have except for my research efforts on the internet --Insider201283 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's forget Jaguar, Volvo and talk about Amway. You say that most of the Amway world has never heard of Britt! According to quixtarwiki, in 2004, Britt had a downline of 1.5 million, and 1 million of that in Amway India! I am from India and my observation is that Bill Britt is worshipped there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knverma (talk • contribs) 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

That 1 million Indian IBOs is almost certainly false or exaggerated. As of 2003 Amway India only had around 310,000 renewed IBOs, which means no more than around 800,000 total IBOs, and they're not all downline of Bill Britt. Network TwentyOne as just one example has a number of Diamonds in India. High level IBOs actually do not know how many people in their downline, that kind of figure is not supplied, so there's lots of guestimating going on. Walk into a Network TwentyOne seminar in India and I'll guarantee most of the IBOs there have no idea who Bill Britt is. He may very well be "worshipped" among his own organization, but the Britt Organization is one of many in the world. Total number of IBOs in all of Amway/Quixar in the world in any given year (including first year IBOs) is in the order of 10 million people. So even if Britt had 1.5 million in his downline, that's only 15%, and many of those downline would not even be in his organization. Britt and Yager are downline of the Hansen's and Ross's, who are part of Network TwentyOne. That doesn't make the Britt organization part of Network TwentyOne. Indeed I suspect that *I* may be downline of Britt - but I've never heard of him apart from reading stuff on the 'net, because the group I work with has nothing to do with him or his organization and hasn't for decades. My NBA "reasoning" being "farfetched", it's not my reasoning. It's Quixtar PR departments own statements. I quote from the Quixtar PR blog about why they chose Amway Arena - "If we're going to shout a name around the world through NBA broadcasts, it's going to be Amway. In other words, we get more bang for our buck by using the Amway name. " --Insider201283 16:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You have raised many issues, they need to be dealt with one by one. First what is the source of the 10 million figure? You contest a figure provided by quixtarwiki but are not prividing the source of your figure. -- Knverma 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1. More than 3.6 million IBOs source: Alticor this is as of Jan 1. 2005. 2. Alticor/Amway/Quixtar report renewed IBOs only when they report numbers of IBOs source: Foundations for Business, CD1, Jim Dornan (2004). Dornan is a Founder's Crown Ambassador and member of IBOAI, so he would know. Confirmed in this 2006 article where it is stated "Amway claims to have 4 million distributors worldwide who have renewed at least once" 3. Overall renewal rates are less than 40% source: various, including FTC v Amway plus confirmation via accurate calculation of actual number of Quixtar IBOs using Quixtar sales data and Quixtar Platinum Index (see post on my site - MYTH: No growth in IBOs in 30 years, section "fun with numbers"). That gives an end of 2004 figure of 9 million (3.6 million renewed), prior to opening of Russian market and relaunch of Chinese market sponsoring, which would easily take it to a total figure of 10 million plus, consistent with the 4 million renewed figure given in the 2006 article. QuixtarWiki is I think a useful resource that should be included in external links, but it's not a valid enough source as far as actual wikipedia article information. --Insider201283 18:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this 3-4 million figure is what I have seen everywhere. If you do your own calculation to provide some 10 million figure then that cannot be used on Wikipedia. -- Knverma 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested it should be, but we're not discussing a sourced statement in the article --Insider201283 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was contesting your statement that most of the Amway world has not heard of Americans like Britt. This clearly seems not to be the case. And I didn't deny that the Quixtar PR said that. But connecting this to China is what I called far-fetched. -- Knverma 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you that most of Network TwentyOne wouldn't have heard of him unless they've spent time googling. He's well known in the britt/yager organizations. Those groups do not constitute a majority of Amway, so it's not sensible to assume other LOS's and LOA's would know much at all. Why would they have? If you can source your apparent claim that most of the Amway world has heard of Britt, then feel free to show me your sources, even your own calculations are fine for here in talk.

Re Amway Arena, how is "connecting this to China" farfetched? China has 30 million people watching the NBA every week [16] compared to less than 84,000 US household who watched last years NBA finals [17]. The stadium was renamed Amway Arena on December 11, less than a week after Alticor announced Amway China received it's direct selling licence [18]. Quixtar PR says one of the reasons for the renaming was global NBA coverage [19]. "farfetched"? I don't think so. --Insider201283 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "most of Amway world has heard of Britt". But taking your 15% figure for the moment, already it contradicts you statement "most of Amway world has not heard of Britt". The second statement being false does not mean that the first statement is true.

Re China: The point is that you are using those long arguments to show that Amway China is very distinct from Quixtar. If the Quixtar PR talks about worldwide coverage etc. then it is only further evidence of the Amway-Quixtar connection. -- Knverma 20:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The link you gave itself says that Quixtar and Amway are deeply connected: Alticor has two business opportunity brands -- Quixtar in North America and Amway in dozens of countries and territories around the world. Amway started here in the U.S. nearly 50 years ago and while interest in Quixtar exceeded interest in Amway here a few years back, the Amway name is synonymous with our kind of multilevel marketing business. Amway is the brand most associated with our company on a global basis as in most of the countries and territories in which we do business, we do business as Amway. Amway is responsible for the lion's share of Alticor sales. And, we have Quixtar IBOs who have Amway businesses in other markets and Amway IBOs who have Quixtar businesses here. -- Knverma 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So? Nobody is denying a connection. Well, nobody here anyway. I'm aware some idiot IBOs do. They're sister companies. Quixtar is the successor to Amway in the United States. All of this is true and should be noted in the article. But the fact remains that Quixtar is a billion dollar company in it's own right. Quixtar runs the #1 health and beauty website, not Amway. Quixtar operates in North America, not Amway. Quixtar has different staff. In some instances it even markets different brands than Amway. It's notable in its own right, and as the company becomes older this becomes even more the case. Sooner or later Quixtar will be better known in North America than Amway, with Amway North America an historical footnote. How long? Who knows. But their separate companies, simple as that. There is no sensible reason to merge the articles. --Insider201283 15:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As was suggested, we should avoid too much parallel discussions at the moment while your mediation process with Will Beback is underway. Anyway I will now be back only after 2 days. -- Knverma 15:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, nobody is denying a connection, not even this PR. But did it make sense that you were using the above PR statement to prove that Amway is very different from Quixtar. -- Knverma 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Willscrlt seemed not so much in favor of a merger. If that continues to be so then I will close this discussion, as we probably need to make some compromises. -- Knverma 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If Willscrit would like to particiapte in this discussion he's welcome. Meanwhile it isn't an urgent issue. If, after further editing of the article, a merger still seems appropriate we can discuss it again. Nothing's set in stone. -Will Beback · † · 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant point (or may be not): the correct username is Willscrlt. Don't offend the mediator :-) -- Knverma 14:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What the ...?

About a year ago, this article had a good explanation on the Amway business model, etc. In fact the whole article was pretty good in general. I come back and all the business model info been excised -- nothing but a heading! Instead the article is filled with legal rulings, criticisms, unsubstantiated claims, and POV guff. Basically it stinks. God I am sick of continually seeing this happening, it's one of the things which is really starting to sh*t me about Wikipedia :( --Jquarry 06:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The material about pin levels etc seems to have been deleted on 27 October by an unregistered user. At that time there were active editors supposed to have both "pro" and "anti" Amway POVs. I wasn't around, so don't know what happened. --Knverma 07:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the article at the time, but I see that the old text on pin levels had no sources. Are there any good sources on this topic? It'd be worthwhile having more info on this. -Will Beback · † · 21:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some printed material from my days in the "Bidness", I guess it would be ok to reference that? (Don't worry I'm not POV "that way" anymore.) Ah... and I apologise to the community for my previous comment :-* --Jquarry 08:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes the omissions in Wikipedia articles can be shocking. Moving forward, the sourcing for an article like this is tricky. Impeccable sources would be newspapers, journals, magazines, books and other secondary published sources. Primary sources, like Amway literature, are harder to verify because most folks don't have access and newer stuff is still copyrighted. Could we at least give a short, general, non-controversial description of the system? I know some of it may be historical, but that's still of interest. -Will Beback · † · 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another point to bear in mind is that there might be slight differences in rules in each country. Quixtar rules are mentioned in the Quixtar article and the Quixtar biz compendium [20] is a good source for that. But, for example, I couldn't find any precise information on the Amway India site except this rules of conduct [21]. --Knverma 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I forgot that even the Quixtar article doesn't have much info on this topic. I suggest that we use the above Quixtar document to add info to the Quixtar article, and then the Amway article can cite that as the typical scheme. I will try to do that soon, unless there are other volunteers. --Knverma 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism

Sorry, but the claim about Dominionism is bunk. The citations are 2 OPINION columns that appear to only casually link the Devos clan to dominionism. This is highly disputed accusation (a blog and liberal Rolling Stone magazine not necessarily the most authoritative sources). The family has roots in the Christian Reformed Church which at the denominational level is a bit left-of-center. Dominionism is a highly debated theology not generally linked to mainstream Christian conservatives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

hmm, gotta say you might have a point. The Rolling Stone article, which is unsourced, seems to have it's claim about DeVos bank-rolling dominionism simply from the fact the DeVos foundation makes donations to Kennedy's Coral Ridge Church.[22]. Reading the wikipedia [Dominionism] article indicates the whole thing may be overblown, I've no idea. Without any evidence at all that it has an effect on Amway culture it's place, if anywhere, is in the DeVos article, not the Amway article. Indeed that goes for a deal of some of the claims under "culture". --Insider201283 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

contested section

The following section has been removed by an IP several times. Initially I reverted, but since the section is unreferenced and has (by removal) been contested, I'm now moving it here for discussion. —AldeBaer (c) 18:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Training and BSMs

{{Unreferenced}} A significant part of the Amway culture is the promotion and sale of training materials, as well as the attendance at meetings and rallies locally, regionally, and nationally. Training includes education about the topic of generalized, non-Amway specific entrepreneurship. The purpose of this is to create interest and enthusiasm. They are intended to maintain and increase membership, and to inspire IBOs to be more successful in their businesses. To a casual observer, they have some resemblance to a religious gathering, due to the fact that meetings and rallies within some distributor organisations in the United States begin with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. (As noted above, exit counseling groups have expressed concern in regards to this.) By involving people in a regular schedule of meetings, people are encouraged to maintain their focus, and to not be distracted by critics and other nay-sayers. Their training organisations', AMOs, perception of the role of women, though, always includes successful women in awards, recognition and speaking engagements. One rarely, if ever, sees a male, married distributor speak on stage without his wife getting equal billing, and explaining her active role in the business.

Typically, IBOs spend money on tapes, books, and seminars which are promoted to IBOs as the preferred way to learn the "business skills of the IBOs" and to maintain their desire to build their business. These "Business Support Materials", or "BSMs", are not provided by Amway itself but organizations often described as Amway Motivational Organizations (AMO) in general run by people in the higher ranks of the organization. One example of an AMO is Crown Ambassador Dexter Yager's organization, the International Dreambuilders' Association/Digital Alliance (usually simply referred to by the abbreviation IDA), one of the largest and most widely-known AMOs. Claims regarding the support material (also known as "tools" in AMO parlance) range from "can be of help to an IBO" to some organizations claiming they "are absolutely required" to "build a big business". Investigations like one done by Dateline NBC in April 2003 (this episode aired in 2004) suggested that most of the money being earned by these successful individuals was coming from the hidden "tools" business rather than through selling the company products.

Other AMOs include Britt World Wide, Network TwentyOne, TEAM, INA, ILD, WWDB, efinity, Marker Man Productions, Biznet or Harteis International, ProAlliance and Interbiz.

Winners International System was established in 2005. Tapes and function tickets generate PV and BV as regular products. EDC Kanti Gala is the chairman of this system. http://www.winnersinternational.org

How can it be called "unreferenced" when it has a reference? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

? You yourself tagged it as {{unsourced}} because it only has one source, Dateline NBC. Winnersinternational.org is not a reliable source and it isn't even attempted to be used as one. —AldeBaer (c) 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, feel free to revert. —AldeBaer (c) 17:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems like we should keep the parts that are sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if no one else wants to, I'll take a look and rewrite the section, or maybe merge the referenced material into other sections. Also, a quick google search spawned two sources I believe are not yet in the article: The Devil Didn't Make Them Do It and Amway Brand on the Way Back. —AldeBaer (c) 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

BWW

Amway India has formed certain rules to be followed by the distributors as well as the 3rd party vendors like BWW (Britt World Wide), and others who sell Business Support Material or shortly called BSM. These guidelines amended in Sept 2005, state that the BSM sold shall be under buy-back policy for a period of 90 days from the day of Purchase. and the various purchases made by Standing Order or the annual subscription of tapes and books etc can be cancelled at any time. But the Cash memos the distributors get from BWW while purchasing the BSMs mentions that "The goods once sold can not be refunded back" which is direct violation with the rules framed by the Amway company. Again the cancellation of the SOT (Standing Order is not accepted by the BWW, which is again a violation. + Gautam Mahapatra + Gautam Gautammahapatra (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Social Impact

I think this article needs to include a discussion of the social impact of Amway eg people becoming unrealistically optimistic about what they can earn through Amway, losing money, losing their friends (due to insistent invitations to sales and marketing meetings) and so forth. While I realise it is not the role of wikipedia to warn people about dubious business ventures, I think that as it stands the article does not give people unfamiliar with pyramid selling and suchlike schemes enough context or background. I think that a brief statement about the social impact and questionable ethics of Amway should be added to the first paragraph. As it stands, the article is full of facts but the level of detail tends to distract one from the main issues surrounding Amway.Soler97 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Helmstetter

Dr. Shad Helmstetter is a published author (not just self-published ala hassan/ross) and behavioural scientist. Personal communications I've had with both Ross and Hassan indicate neither have done *any* direct research into Amway, yet you appear to consider their claims ok? Helmstetter's comments refer directly to their statements. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Author and behavioural scientist Shad Helmstetter spent five years in the 1990s researching Amway. In his book American Victory: The Real Story of Today's Amway, Helmstetter stated "Working in the field of human behavior, I've studied the cults for many years. The Amway business is the opposite of cult psychology." With regard to other allegations of Amway being a cult, he replied in an interview "The old myth that Amway is a cult is supported only by people who are either misinformed or uninformed. I would like to examine their research.".

An editor deleted this material with the edit summary of "The doctor is just another shill for Amway".[23] Is there any evidence to show that this is the case? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who qualifies to be called a "shill"? He has said that he speaks at Amway meetings, but doesn't accept any honorarium.

The other question which we should ask is his notability and/or area of expertise. --Knverma (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be a an author of books on "personal growth". See his website, [24], and Google books [25], which also shows he's quoted in other books. So his expertise appears to be the general field of "self help". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Helmstetter's credentials

Anyone can write a self-help book these days. What are the credentials of DOCTOR Helmstetter? I might be getting forgetful, but in some Amway promotional material I have come across in the distant past, Helmstetter got his Ph.D. at "Amway university" specializing in "Amway". Can anyone verify this? This material was already in circulation in the late 90s (when it came to my attention) so it must have been a little longer when this particular material was published. --Bart weisser (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any information about his degree or education on his website, which is odd because he uses "Ph.D." prominently (a sign, in my experience, of hacing poor credentials). However a best-selling author may be a noteworthy commentator even without credentials. The Amway Wiki is not a good source - do we have anything better? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While the material purports to come from a book, the actual source is http://www.amwaywiki.com, apparently copying a Helmstetter newsletter. (probably without authorization - I see that Wikipedia material has been copied without attribution, in violation of license requirements). Until a better source for this information, and a better sense of Helmstetter's expertise on cults (which is what he's speaking about), I suggest that we should leave it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, here is his education history, from one of his webpages:

• Shad is a native of Minnesota. After serving as a Spanish/English interpreter for the U.S. in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he pursued his undergraduate education at Harper College, Palatine, Illinois, and San Jose State, San Jose, California. He received a college-level teaching credential from the State of California, and taught Business and Marketing at De Anza College, Cupertino, California. He received a Masters degree in Human Behavior and a Ph.D. in Motivational Psychology from Southwest University, Metairie, Louisiana.[26]

The problem is that there is no "Southwest University" in Metairie. There's one in nearby Kenner, Louisiana. It's a distance learning establishment with minimal accreditation.[27] (It was founded in 1982 and first accredited in 2004[28], perhaps before Helmstetter got his degree there.) They don't currently offer either of the degrees he obtained there, and no Ph.D. are offered at all. As an example of their requirements, I see that a Masters in criminal science only requires 36 hours. Let's just say that Helmstetter's education background is insufficient for him to make authoritative pronouncements on the topic he was used as a source for here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Will, you're the man ... (I am not worthy) --Bart weisser (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This link has a lady claiming a PHD in Psychology from SouthWest, Louisiana. It's possible that programs have changed, since SouthEast University, Louisiana, appears to have doctorate programs in psychology. Indeed a google of "southwest university" PHD psychology find lots of apparently credible people claiming PHDs from SouthWest. If you want to go down that track, I'd also point out that Steve Hassan, one of the two "cult sources", claims a "Masters" which investigation reveals was obtained from what was then an unaccredited distance university. One of the other "sources" is Rick Ross's self published website. AFAIK, Ross has no formal educational creditionals and both Ross and Hassan charge money to "cult victims". A third source, CAIC in Australia gained credibility by being hosted on a University server. It was run by a student and the University made them remove the site when they learned of it. The CAIC is not registered as a business, association, or organization anywhere in Australia (check http://www.asic.gov.au) It's just another self-published site that in my opinion doesn't even come close to "reliable source" standard. So, we have Halmstetter with an apparently real PHD plus numerous books published by recognized publishers, vs two guys, neither of whom have accredited educational qualifications, who make money convincing people they can "save" their loved ones from cults and an ex-Jehovah's witness in Australia whose website was closed by a University (you'll have take my word for it, I was a staff member at the University at the time) and whose commentary on Amway seems to be nothing but a set of links. And of those "sources", Halmstetter is the one challenged? Yeah, that makes sense. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bingo - SouthWest was renamed University of Louisiana at Lafayette in 1999 --Insider201283 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, It used to be called "University of Southwestern Louisiana". That's quite a different thing. Just ebcause another persona got the same degree doesn't mean it's credible, that the university was accredited at the time. If you notice above, I started out defending the source until I did the research. I agree that Helmstetter is notable as a self-help author. He's just not sufficient as an expert on cults, which is how he's being used. Hassan and Ross are known as experts on cults despite their lack of academic credentials, while I don't think anyone would describe Helmstetter the same way. If we want to say that "Helmstetter, a best selling author of self-help books and frequent speaker at Amway events, disputes the characterization of Amway as a cult" then that might be reasonable. But to imply that he's an expert with a legitimate PhD in a related field is just not plausible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He may not be considered an expert on "cults" as Ross and Hassan are by some (note - some - that is a controversial topic in itself), however he is a behavioural scientist who spent years studying Amway and published two books on it. This article is on Amway, not cults, and neither Hassan nor Ross have any expertise in Amway. As best I can establish, neither of them have done *any* independent research into Amway. Ross certainly hasn't, I challenged him on this in a private email conversation. He became aggressive and accused me of being brainwashed. :-/ In any case, it's likely that the "SouthWest" university you cite above is probably not the one Helmstetter and many others are referring to. As you state, SouthWest doesn't even have a graduate program and isn't located in Metairie, yet a google finds many folk, including University staff, citing degrees from SouthWest, Louisiana. A google finds over 2500 pages referring to SouthWestern as "University of Southwest Louisiana". I went to the University of Queensland, yet we always referred to it as Queenslad University, so I can see "SouthWest University" and "University of Southwest Louisiana" being the same place. Mind you, none of the above has a campus at Metairie that I can find. University of Phoenix does. Helmstetter's not exactly young, it's likely he got his PhD 20+ years ago, who knows what campus changes have happened at that time.

Still, the key point is he's an acknowledged author and behavioural scientist and he has studied Amway and published at least 2 books about it, and made the quote given. Neither Ross nor Hassan have ever studied Amway any more than based on emails to their website and neither have published anything about Amway except on their self-published websites. Indeed all I can find on Rick Ross's site is links, he has no independent commentary I can find. That's a WP:RS source for this topic? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He's an acknowledged author. He has not been shown to be a behavioral scientist. If we identify him as a best-selling author who regularly speaks at Amway events giving his personal opinion, then I don't mind. But not as an expert in science or a Ph.D. in a relevant topic. We don't even have a reliable source for his statement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How has he not been shown to be a behavioural scientist? He states he has a PHD in "motivational psychology", which by definition means he had to do original research, he is referred to on the books and elsewhere (eg this review from the Oklahoma Bar Journal) as a "behavioural researcher". Book companies such as Alibris and Powells have him described as "an acclaimed psychologist". Feel free to call him a "psychologist and behavioural researcher" instead of scientist. I've managed to track down an archive.org copy of the original interview from his site. You've also not commented on the reasoning behind including Hassan/Ross/CIAC. Ross and CIAC in particular, given they're nothing but link lists, what on earth is the justification? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not calling a guy with a 36-hour (or so) Ph.D. from a correspondence school an "acclaimed psychologist" or even a "behavioural researcher". I don't doubt that he's a best-selling author and has appeared on Oprah, and I'm fine with putting that in. But not his academic credentials. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Come off it Will, you're reaching a bit there. The University you are assuming his degree is from (a) does not offer PhDs (b) does not offer degrees in Psychology and (b) does not have a campus in Metairie. There is no justification given this obvious uncertainty to claim he has a 36-hour Ph.D. Do I assume from your non-reply re Ross and CAIC that you've no issues with those sources being removed? --Insider201283 (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Southwest University = Southwest University. It doesn't currently offer the degree in question, though it certainly may have in the past. It is accredited now, though it may not have been in the past. As for Ross and CAIC, I havn't looked into yur questions about those. Let's resolve Helmstetter first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of assumptions there, don't you think? You could just as easily assume he meant Southwestern University. As it happens I've emailed his website and the SU website to hopefully get some clarification. So lets deal with CAIC and Ross, and FactNet for that matter. With regards Amway all these sites appear to be simply link lists. Hassan actually has analysis and something to say. --Insider201283 (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I wasn't familiar with the terms used for US universities, so I thought I'd check it out. The Graduate degree in Criminology you rubbished is not "36-hours", it's "36 semester hours above the Baccalaureate Degree in Criminal Justice or a closely related field, or in the social sciences." A semester hour is a measure of weekly hours put in[29]. A 4 year degree is normally 120-140 semester hours[30], so this Masters appears to be a 1 year full-time course on top of a 4 yr recognized degree, in otherwords a perfectly legitimate looking course.--Insider201283 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pending resolution of what exactly? No matter what campus, he's got a PHD in psychology from an accredited university (not a 36hr degree mill as you claimed), he's a well known and published behavioural expert, and he has published two independent books on Amway! And you don't consider him an appropriate source for that article? Come off it Will, I don't really have the energy to go to mediation, but if you're not going to be fair I have no choice. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right about the course hours. However I still object to using this source as a credentialled expert on cults, especially in such a prominent fashion. As I mentioned before, we can call him a "best-selling author and speaker at Amway events" or somethng to that effect. A webarchive version of a self-published interview is a barely adequate source. Let's wait until you hear back from your email queries before we add this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

His credentials aren't relevant. "Firedup.org" isn't a reliable source. Since the content is disputed, it should be removed. johnpseudo 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you may want to check out the proposed WP:BELIEF. An interview with Shad Helmstetter quoted on Shad Helmstetter's website is very clearly to be considered a reliable source regarding Shad Helmstetter's opinion. There's no argument he meets notability guidelines. Am I correct in that the issue seems to be that Will believes Helmstetter is lying about his PhD? If you want to argue that he's not a "credentialled expert on cults", then we can just as easily (more easily in fact) that neither Hassan, Ross, or Groenvald are "credentialled experts on Amway". Of those only Hassan apepars to have actually written anything themselves substantive on Amway, apparently entirely based on a sample of emails. So on what basis do you claim they have any authority or expertise to comment on Amway? --Insider201283 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Helmstetter is not known as an expert on cults, the best of my knowledge. If I'm mistaken I'd be happy to be corrected. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And none of those cited are known as experts on Amway. By the way, Rick Ross' front page states it's about "cults, destructive cults, controversial groups and movements". Being listed on the site doesn't mean he believes it's a cult, merely at least controversial. Do you believe that every wikipedia article about every group he has listed should mention the fact he has listed them? --Insider201283 (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lydia M. Ocmand, Registrar's Office at SouthWest University has confirmed they have offered Doctoral Degrees in the past. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that confirms that SU could be his "alma mater". You didn't ask if he was a graduate, or if they were accredited at the time? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked if he was alma mater, they're checking. I imagine it's not such a simple thing to check from two decades ago. I didn't ask about accreditation at the time. Given you accept Hassan's non-accredited distance degree I didn't see that as a major issue for you. Is it? I see you're still not answering my numerous questions to you. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on tihs stuff. I dont' see any mention of a degree by Hassan in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Like I said, his credentials aren't relevant. What's relevant is whether the statements that you're referencing have been published in a reliable source. Any self-published sources are inherently non-reliable, no matter who is self-publishing. As far as I can tell, the only place his statements regarding Amway being a cult have been published are in "Firedup.org". If you're able to find a more-reliable source where the same thing has been published, we can include it. johnpseudo 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

John, it's been well established that a persons own publications are considered reliable sources for their own views, thus firedup.org is a reliable source. If you can tell me a more reliable source for a persons opinions then that person then I'd be interested to hear it. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But if we allow any self-published information by any notable figure, who decides what is notable and what is not? Are we to include every blog entry made by Robert Reich, every current.tv entry by Al Gore, and every campaign website entry by Hillary Clinton? I can see how what you're saying would apply if self-published comments were obviously notable, such as official company statements that respond to allegations that are published in reliable sources, but this is quite the stretch. johnpseudo 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree, but I word argue that the opinion of a qualified behavioural scientist who has researched Amway for 5 years, including extensive interviews with staff, distributors, and former distributors, resulting in two published books on the subject is significantly more notable than the opinion of (1) a guy who has done nothing more than link to articles on Amway online and written the occasional blog post (2) a guy whose done an "analysis" of Amway based on emails written to him and (3) a lady who has done no commentary at all on Amway and merely has a link list on her site. To allow the latter three but dispute the first is simply absurd. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the rest of the article, and I'm not arguing about those. johnpseudo 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should, the Helmstetter quote in question is in direct reference to them. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Insider - self-published sources are considered credible if and only if it still stands after being scrutinized from all points of view. Helmstetter's research on Amway has not been rigorously examined by anyone, even from people in Amway. From that standpoint, I do not consider this source to be accurate or credible. Since his qualifications as a "behavioral scientist" is in question (thanks to research from Will Beback), I think there is no question of Helmstetter's credibility as an academic himself. On these two points, I think there is something to say about his so-called scholarly work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.210.23 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, So let's just get this straight -

• Steve Hassan - questionable degree, no research into Amway, no publications about Amway, self-published website - his opinion of Amway is OK and notable and he's RS
• Rick Ross - no degree, no research into Amway, no publications about Amway, self-published website - his interest in Amway alone is notable and he's RS
• Jan Groenvald - no degree, no research into Amway, no publications about Amway, self-published website - her interest in Amway alone is notable and she's RS
• Shad Helmstetter - multiple degrees (only one of which is challenged), 5 years research into Amway, published multiple books about Amway, self-published website - he's not notable or RS

Seriously, you people need to look in a mirror and evaluate yourself. Looks like I have to go to mediation AGAIN. I'll see if the other Will used last time is still available --Insider201283 (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The registrar of SouthWest University has confirmed that Dr Shad Helmstetter has a PhD in Psychology from that institution. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And did they say if they were accredited at the time? According to the currint accrediting body, they were first accredied in 2004. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask, nor the year he was awarded. Did you ask Hassan's college if they were accredited when he received the degree? Nope, you don't care about that. You've already libelled the college with your false claims it was a "36 hr" degree mill. It clearly is not, and as shown before a google search finds numerous folk with qualifications from SouthWest, including PHDs in psychology similar to Helmstetters. In at least one case it was folk with APA accreditation. The APA does not like kindly on degree mills. Your complete bias in regard to this topic, again, is infuriating and you should be ashamed of yourself as a Wiki admin. You're more than happy to accept the inclusion of the opinions (and even lack of opinions) of individuals with no educational qualifications and no link at all to Amway, as well as those with qualifications equably as questionable, but a published author in the area with higher degrees? - nope, he has to be challenged every step of the way. Still, I shouldn't be surprised, should I. I haven't forgotten that you considered Rick Ross's Curriculum Vitae to be a reputable source for information that was not about Rick Ross. I'm taking a break from this. If this kind of attitude is common throughout Wikipedia and Wikipedia admins, then the whole thing is a disgrace. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. We're not using Hassan as an exerpt due to his academic credentials. OTOH, the Helmstetter material prominently mentioned his degree and implied that his degree made him an expert. The degree was obtained from a correspondence school with minimal accrditation, and which may not have been acredited at all at the time of his graduation. As I've said repeatedly, I don't mind mentioning Helmstetter as a best-selling author, just not as an expert with an academic credential. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I called up Southwest University. I asked about Helmstetter, the lady immediately (I mean, immediately, not "let me look it up on the records" kind of immediately) told me yes, indeed, Shad earned his Ph.D. in motivational psychology there, in 1987. When I asked her about his thesis title and the names of advisor, she said it that information was in storage. I asked her on the phone to get back to me whenever this information becomes available. --Bart weisser (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that effort. If you speak to them again please ask about their accreditation history. This set of minutes from the Louisiana board of regents makes it appear that they were unaccredited in 2000.[31] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Separate discussion on Cult aspect?

Steming from all that arguments on Helmstetter and credibility, Here may be a happy medium for the two camps. It has been known, that the "cult" aspect of Amway falls technically outside of originally intended jurisdiction of Amway. The sale of MLM propaganda and "motivational" materials (or "tools", as the insiders calls them), as well as proceeds to rallies and seminars, forms a separate economic and organizational entity from Amway. Though the "cult" and the "business" aspects are often associated together, they are still separate on paper. I think, the clarity (and controversy) of the article can be greatly improved once these two topics become separate.

Therefore, it would be a better idea to create a new heading along the line of "Amway, cult, and sale of motivational materials", by stating that Amway and the "motivational" stuff are separate entities, but are often intwined. Then discussions and their credibility can be fully disclosed.

P.S. - insider - what exactly is RS?

--Bart weisser (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RS= Reputable Source as per WP:RS. Re "cult", if you are actually knowledgeable at Amway, which Hassan, Ross, and Groenvald clearly are not, then you'd also be aware that the stuff Hassan references, even if you agree with it, actually refers primarily to just one group within one market of Amway, and he has clumsily, with no independent research, extrapolated it to the rest of Amway. The Wikipedia article does say "some" groups, but if you actually did the proper research you would find that it quite easily falls within the "minority opinion" class that Jimmy Wales states shouldn't even have a place in Wikipedia. Having said that, thanks to opinions like Hassan's and Ross's being in places like Wikipedia and propogated to numerous other places on the internet, I believe it's reasonable for the article to address it. It's just shameful that a Wiki admin will fight the inclusion of contrary opinion from a reputable source every step of the way. I'll come back to this when I've had a break. The same thing happened last time I tried to get some balance into the Amway/Quixtar articles. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, I believe the Amway organization is not very transparent. Conversations with a number of my former associates, all of whom had some kind of involvement with Amway, became either ignorant or intentionally deceptive when confronted with such direct questions on Amway. This is also true with members of a number of MLM-type organizations that I have come across in the past.

I think you would agree with me that there is, indeed, a cult element within Amway. It is more important to examine the extent of such element, before such strong comments about credibility of information contrary to one's believe system (such as the ones you have been making) can be justified. This can be evaluated, at first hand, by comparing the sales volume of Amway products to those of the "Tools".

In an open source information such as Wikipedia, I think it is important to dispel these so-called "misconceptions" not by suppressing them, but by casting reasonable doubts instead.

--Bart weisser (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, in my experience every time someone says something like that, a few queries reveals they were all associating with the same group and it's affiliates - just one part of Amway. Regarding whether there's a "cult element" or not, well, I happen to have psych degrees myself and I agree with mainstream academic opinion in the field which disputes whethere "cults" in the way Hassan and Ross refer to them even exist. Even if you accept Hassan's BITE model, some basic research into Amway shows it doesn't even fit the model well - not even for the group that his information was based on. Basic research that Hassan never bothered to do in the first hand, and Helmstetter did. However, I agree there's a public understanding of "cults" which some groups may appear to fit (as an atheist myself I think a large proportion of the America population would fit this "understanding"!). Given the public perception of what a cult is, and the internet acceptance of the veracity of Hassan's and Ross's positions, I agree it has a place in the article. But apparently it is the position of a certain Wikipedia Admin that views to the contrary must reach a significantly higher standard to be included. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What are these references you are talking about? Are they independently affiliated (i.e., not have anything to do with Amway)? I would like to take a look at some of these works.

Also, with regard to the "small group", I guess the main concern is that this particular group that we identify with Amway, are so vocal, that it *has* associated with Amway itself. Again, this is important, because I believe there are "honest" Amway reps (I have yet to see one), again, the organizational structure of Amway makes it close to impossible to see past the "motivational" aspect. --Bart weisser (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all I said "same group" not "small group". In terms of raw numbers they are quite large, and as you say quite visible by their nature, but as regard to the size of all of Amway they are a minority (one analysis indicates in 1995 they consituted less than 10% of the North American market). A nice review of the whole brainwashing/cult area is here. Note that Hassan's theories are based on the work of Margaret Singer whose report on the topic to the APA was rejected as unscientific. http://www.cesnur.org has a lot of good resources in the area. Helmstetter himself is unaffiliated with Amway. He has spoken at Amway-affiliated conferences at the past, but refused compensation and did not promote his books, he says in order to maintain independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insider201283 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ross & CAIC

What are the issues with Ross and CAIC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The pages linked to for Ross, CAIC, and FactNET are primarily self-published link lists to or of information from other sites, very few of which are WP:RS. As has been discussed heavily on Wikipedia with regard to sites like Rick Ross's, if the sites are WP:RS then they should be linked to directly. Heck, in this article not even any of the Ross/CAIC copyright violations on their sites are linked to directly, just to the link list! That's pretty absurd really. --Insider201283 (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon review those appear to be appropriate uses. We're decscribing their interest in Amway. Their interest is the notable fact, and their websites are linked as proof of that interest. We're not using them as sources for other facts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why their interest is even notable, especially in the case of CAIC? It appears to me that too often, particularly in controversial areas, sites and their authors are being accepted as "notable" just because other adherents to their POV quote and link to them a lot. Jan Groenvald has no notability I'm aware of outside her self-published website. Rick Ross has managed to make a name for himself, but I'm actually pretty astounded he gets away with being considered an "expert" by wikipedians. This seems to be based primarily on the (popular) fact he does battles with scientology. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved the P&G stuff up, as that's a prominent case in which actual damages were demonstrated in court. I think the best way to handle this controversy section would be to balance it with more of the accolades that Amway has received. I'm sure there are some, besides simply the BBB. Hasn't it ever receive a "business of the year" award? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Amway and it's products and associates have received an enormous number of awards. Whenever folk put them in this article in the past they've tended to get removed. Indeed, if you actually take the time to research Amway a little more objectively (and not just on the 'net), you'll find the "controversy" part probably becomes so minor as that it doesn't even qualify under Wikipedia guidelines. It's become significant to a great part because of the internet echo chamber and the corps silly decision a decade ago to stop Amway supporters posting on the internet and to simply ignore a handful of prolific critics in the hope they'd go away. Seriously, the awards list is extremely long. Folk with an anti-Amway agenda will complain it "reads like an advertisement". What are you going to agree to without me having to dedicate 24hrs a day to battling it out with you? --Insider201283 (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to handle this information is to balance it with a section on awards and honors cited to 3rd-party sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Media Articles

What's the "standard" for being listed here? There are literally thousands of media articles referring to Amway. Probably tens of thousands. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ja-Ri

All distributors are *not* downline of Ja-Ri. When they formed Amway they maintained Nutrilite Lines of Sponsorship, meaning their upline, Neil Maaskant remained their upline, and his group remained crossline to Ja-Ri. When Amway bought Nutrilite the Nutrilite lines also became crossline to Ja-Ri. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)