Top distributors' response to the Internet sites

Amway produces a monthly magazine for distributors called the Amagram.
The magazine is widely read and has articles about new achievements, product lines and administrative issues. In the August 1997 issue (US issue), there was a half-page article entitled "Business Ethics-How to deal with Inaccurate or Misleading Internet Reports". The following is the text of the article followed by my own personal view on Amway's article.

Below is the article which I've separated into sections in dark grey and followed with my response in red.


The Internet has become a communication vehicle for millions of people worldwide.

This is true.

As might be expected, some users have chosen to post opinions, both positive and negative, about Amway Corporation and its distributors.

This is true.

This has prompted distributors to ask: "What do I say when prospects or downlines ask about negative information they have read 'on the Net'?

Here we see the depiction of data unflattering to Amway as "negative". A common tactic of AMO cults. Their mind is already closed with this portrayal of sites like mine.

What if prospects say they are declining to become distributors because of this information?"

The Amway recruiter's worst fear: prospects and new recruits finding out what lies they're being told.

In such situations, you can explain that the Internet has become a massive forum for free speech, where people around the world can debate differing opinions. This is a fundamental value of a free society.

Yes, you can certainly explain this but for most people it wouldn't be necessary.

However, with this easy and inexpensive access to a public forum, Internet users should look closely at the person or entity posting the information. Is the poster of the information a credible source?

The implication being that if it's easy and inexpensive it's automatically suspect. THEN you should look carefully at the source. If it's difficult and costly then it must be reputable.

Does the poster have an agenda that might make the information less reliable?

So, folks, what agenda might make the information "less reliable"? The need to warn others of potential harm? The need to awaken the populace to the tricks of a dangerous cult? The need to offset the propaganda of huge predatory organizations? The need to tell the truth as a particular individual has experienced it? Top Amway distributors are implying in not-too-subtle terms that they have the only honorable agenda.

Objections to the Amway business are nothing new.

This is true and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the reasons.

As an Amway distributor, you encounter people who are reluctant to take advantage of the Amway opportunity. In many cases, their objections are based on fear of the unknown or lack of knowledge.

There are many reasons for the "reluctance" - ranging from disgust for MLM's to traumatic experiences in the Amway business itself. The vast majority of cases are reluctant because of the KNOWN, not the unknown. They HAVE the knowledge - they know what really goes on in the course of building an Amway business within AMO's.

In other cases, they may have been exposed to inaccurate information about the Amway business through word of mouth, television reports, newspaper articles, or other sources.

This must be a joke. The inaccurate information comes from AMO distributors themselves. They are masters of informational slight-of-hand. This because of the generally unfavorable image AMO leaders have created with their tactics. Amway sits silent in the face of the dastardly deeds of AMO's. This silence is perceived as approval. So Amway and Amway alone is to blame for this guilt-by-association effect of AMO shenanigans.

The Internet is simply a new medium of expression.

No. the Internet is a collossally new and EFFECTIVE medium of expression and Amway and AMO's are getting nervous. As they should. Because it will be the internet that will facilitate the grass roots movement that will put an end to AMO harm. Too many people have been harmed for this not to happen and the internet will be the vehicle.

As with all prospect concerns, here, too, the best approach is to listen carefully to what your prospects are saying, make sure you understand their specific objections, and then answer those objections as you would if they had obtained a less than complete and fair opinion of Amway through a relative, friend or newspaper story.

Upline distributors don't listen carefully to concerns and objections from prospects. They CAN'T. Their critical intelligence has been disabled by AMO mind control. They have canned responses to everything "negative" and are programmed not to listen at all, much less carefully.

To support you, ABN Amway Business Network has a section that provides information on many commonly asked questions about the Amway opportunity. The Amway websites also provide information about the Amway business and Amway distributors. And as always, you can contact your upline or Amway Corporation regarding specific questions or concerns.

Yes, get your information from Amway and your Amway recruiter or upline sponsor. They'll give you information on all sides of the issue. And snakes have hips.

Ultimately, however, no matter how much information you provide, there will always be some people who can never be convinced of the benefits of owning their own business. As often we hear in the business, "Some will, some won't, so what."

What an arrogant, self-serving statement. There are countless thousands who are convinced of the benefits of owning their own business and are DOING it but NOT through Amway. AMO distributors perform some specious acts of number crunching in their presentations to create the impression all other home-based businesses fail. Amway is implying that Amway is the ONLY way one can "own their own business" - part of the "Amway and the Wrong Way" mindset nurtured and rampant in AMO's.



The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.