Quixtar v. Monavie

"Buy 1 for yourself and get the chance to sell your friends and family 5 and get your downline started!" We examine the multi-level marketing industry, where only the people who come up with the ideas make any money, and everybody else is left unhappy, broke, and tired of reading scripts and selling overpriced vitamins and similarly worthless products. Includes Global Prosperity, Pinnacle Quest International, IRS Codebusters, Stratia, and other new Global Prosperity scams.

Moderator: wserra

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Gregg » Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:34 am

The corporate sales history is presented, and a worldwide corp. that is doing in upwards of seven billion in sales worldwide is obviously doing something right.


And doing it for nearly a hundred years, too.

General Motors, that is.....
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

User avatar
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Imalawman » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:21 pm

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:I'm fixing to show you that you don't know as much about the business as you portray.

You present much speculation/misinformation.

Imalawman wrote: Depends on the situation. Let's go back to my example. I was given the line that is taught in the training meetings in quixtar (yes, I have been to several of them). The line was, "looking for people to join me in my web-based business". Then, he wants me to go into business with him and to join a system. We will be tied together in the business and it does require a particular outlay of cash. So my question was, "show your business statements". I did NOT ask for his private records of his own personal finances.

So I happen to work in a larger firm. But when I was recruited by some smaller firms I would have expected to see some financial statements indicating how successful the business was. Larger firms just pay the associates enough not to care - at first.

The answer - if were being asked by a unknown law student in whom I was not interested to see my personal records, then no, I would not. However, if I were recruiting that person, then they might ask for my firm's business records and I think we'd probably show him some simple statements showing the underlying profitability.


I understand your POV, but you are attempting to compare "apples" with "orange. The business of an Amway IBO cannot be accurately measured in the same way a law practice is measured because the IBO does not build their business in the same manner a traditional business such as law firm does. To keep this short and sweet, prospects rarely ask for business records or statements. The corporate sales history is presented, and a worldwide corp. that is doing in upwards of seven billion in sales worldwide is obviously doing something right.

IBO's also show a taste of the "Diamond lifestyle" in addition to income projections. That's really all that is necessary from that stand point. It's not a difficult analysis, and there is no need to make it so.


ha, no you are trying to compare apples and oranges. It was YOUR idea to begin with and now you're criticizing me for defending against it? Yes, I agree you can't compare a real business with a scam.

I know full well that I do not know all there is to know about Amway, but I've been through the training sessions to support a friend of mine and I've been to many, many rallies to support him as well. I know more about it then most people. But you sure know a lot about it for someone who denies being in it too. Me thinks you're not telling us the whole truth.

The bottom line is that there a EXTERNAL studies which show that the PV system used is flawed. There is simply no way to make any real money with the system. Perhaps if you're lucky enough to reach double diamond you could perhaps get to six figures in sales money. But in order to get it, you've got to get into the media side to keep you liquid while you lose money hand over fist on the sales side for 8 years or more. You can't deny that the lion's share of the money in quixstar is in the media.

The truth is, quixstar promises things that aren't true - it is not a continuing well of money for ever and ever. Just 2 years ago a few double diamonds quit because the money dried up. Its a scam, it will always be a scam. There's no real product - the product is a sort of front for the real business of getting people to use the products themselves while they get people to use the products themselves. At the end of the day, you're really selling a system - and that is a pyramid scheme - IMNSHO.

Maybe you're different, maybe all your friends made tons of money in quixstar? As for me not a single one made anything to speak of. Not even the one that spent 10 years in the business working his ass off. Not the couple that waited to get married until they struck it big for 3 years, only to get married broke and are now waiting to have kids until they strike it big - they spend their evenings at Target, "meeting people". Not the person that started in the business when he was 16 and finally quit it when he was 23 and then tripled his income by focusing on his real business that he had ignored while he focused on quixstar.

But hey, maybe all your friends are living in 8,000 sq ft. mansions on nothing but selling Amway products.

As for me, I worked my ass off in school and working night jobs to pay for it. Now I'm done and enjoy a rewarding career that pays me quite well. I'll take that, thank you very much, have a nice day.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown

ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:15 pm

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby ASITStands » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:37 pm

Imalawman wrote:The truth is, quixstar promises things that aren't true - it is not a continuing well of money for ever and ever. Just 2 years ago a few double diamonds quit because the money dried up. Its a scam, it will always be a scam. There's no real product - the product is a sort of front for the real business of getting people to use the products themselves while they get people to use the products themselves. At the end of the day, you're really selling a system - and that is a pyramid scheme - IMNSHO.


Amway has always had great, overpriced products. The only way anyone could actually afford to use the products was to become a distributor. Quixtar is just the internet version.

I joined Amway three times because I was excited about the business opportunity, but after I discovered my friends and family either already had a distributor of choice, or they considered the products too expensive compared to commercial alternatives, I quit.

I was offered an opportunity to join Quixtar but it just smacked of the same, old products. Frankly, I was always turned off by the practicing of not telling prospects, "It's Amway!"

"The product is a sort of front for the real business of getting people to use the products ..."

No truer words were ever spoken regarding Amway or Quixtar. And, prospecting by not telling the "marks" the name of the company is dishonesty, in my opinion, and the part that makes this look like a scam. I have no idea why we're wasting space with this discussion.

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:54 pm

ASITStands wrote: Amway has always had great, overpriced products.

That was my initial impression as well. That is a very common objection from people who've not taken the time to get acquainted with using the products.

On the surface, yes, they do *appear* overpriced.
However, if one takes the time to do a price comparison against brand-X, on a cost per use basis, one will find that a*lot of them are priced quite competitively. In some instances they are priced higher, and in those cases one finds that their quality, verses brand-X, is higher as well.

I find three other advantages using the the Amway line:
One is concentration. A*lot of their cleaners are sold as a concentrate designed to be diluted with H2O. I have had many-y many instances where a deep set, stubborn stain didnt come out until I used a concentrate. In those instances, I didn't care so much about price, I just wanted the dam stain out!

You cannot get that sort of flexibility, convenience with brand-X that is already sold in diluted form.

Second, I like a product delivered right to my door, and the supermarkets don't offer that service.

Third, and most important, brand-X won't pay me to use/recommend their products!

The only way anyone could actually afford to use the products was to become a distributor.

Not true. My ex used to service lots of retail customers. Lots of her orders frequently averaged 50$-100$ per sale! People love the quality of Amway products and will buy them for that quality alone!

Question for you. Can you go and buy a box of soap at your grocery store and then up to six months later, return it for a full refund? I venture to say "No".

Amway offers a 180 day money back guarantee on their products.

Quixtar is just the internet version.

Yes and no. Yes, Quixtar was owned by the DeVos and VanAndel families. I say "was" because Quixtar is now "Amway Global" per their site. Quixtar was designated for the families North American business, whereas Amway was and is still a worldwide business.

It is more accurate to say that Quixtar was the internet version of the families business in regards to North America only.

I joined Amway three times because I was excited about the business opportunity, but after I discovered my friends and family either already had a distributor of choice, or they considered the products too expensive compared to commercial alternatives, I quit.
People do business with whom they like, and once i properly, (and professionally,) presented the cost effectiveness and the quality of the products, I never had problems finding customers.

Frequently customers recommend the products to their extended families also. My ex has told me stores about her customers, some very excited mothers getting all of their grown children to buy products from her.

Customers are easy to come by!
I was offered an opportunity to join Quixtar but it just smacked of the same, old products. Frankly, I was always turned off by the practicing of not telling prospects, "It's Amway!"

That must have been prior 2009. From 1999 to early 2009, in North America, it wasn't Amway, it was Quixtar. I'm assuming you saw the business presented in North America?

"The product is a sort of front for the real business of getting people to use the products ..."
Just like Proctor and Gamble uses advertising to get people to use their products. BTW....word of mouth advertising is cheaper and Amway has used it for years.

And, prospecting by not telling the "marks" the name of the company is dishonesty, in my opinion, and the part that makes this look like a scam.


When I was a child, someone rang our door bell, it turned out to be an Amway distributor out cold calling in our neighborhood, selling Amway door to door.

That was my very first impression of "Amway".

The first time I was prospected, I asked what the name of the company was. If he had told me it was "Amway", I wouldn't have been the least bit interested, despite the fact that the IBO"s don't advocate selling door-to-door.

Not every IBO builds the business the same way, and with "horror stories" galore, the IBO simply wants an honest opportunity to "show the plan" while avoiding the possibility of any preconceived misconceptions.

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1457
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Arthur Rubin » Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:28 am

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:Third, and most important, brand-X won't pay me to use/recommend their products!
No problem, if you're on shopping.com, or one of the other pay-for-review consumer sites.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:37 am

Arthur Rubin wrote:
GoldandSilverEagles wrote:Third, and most important, brand-X won't pay me to use/recommend their products!
No problem, if you're on shopping.com, or one of the other pay-for-review consumer sites.

Care to show me the people who do that and make over two grand a month part time, month after month?

cdj1122

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby cdj1122 » Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:07 am

Some thoughts and an experience about/with "Concentration".
.
About thirty years ago a customer came into my shop and tried to interest me in a concentrated hand cleaner that he claimed to be many times better than the large cans of "Go-JO" that I usually purchased from a local distributor.
.
To prove his case he left a small bottle of his product with me to try as he was certain that it would impress me both with its cleaning power as well as ultimately its lower cost per useage.
.
I read the instructions and followed them using the small drop of cleaner as directed and found it was an excellent hand cleaner. I explained its usage to my employees, four young mechanics who washed their hands several times a working day.
.
I watched the usage and when the bottle ran out set it aside. The customer returned in a few days and asked how it worked. I said it worked really well and noticed that as I said that he was opening an order pad. I then told him I did not want any because quite simply his product was too expensive to use in the shop setting.
.
Then he began to explain how many drops there were in a bottle and how many handwashing that would be. I pointed out to him that the employess were not all that sparing with the juice and that every time they used it they were using a weeks worth of product. I did not have the time nor inclination to accompany each of them to the washroom all day to monitor the process.
.
I found that the "Go-Jo" did the job acceptably well, and the gob of muck that they used provided the emotional fulfillment they seemed to require at a much lower cost. And far less agravation.
.
Sure concentration had its advantages but not in the part of the real world where we operated.

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:59 am

cdj1122 wrote:Some thoughts and an experience about/with "Concentration".
.
About thirty years ago a customer came into my shop and tried to interest me in a concentrated hand cleaner that he claimed to be many times better than the large cans of "Go-JO" that I usually purchased from a local distributor.
.
To prove his case he left a small bottle of his product with me to try as he was certain that it would impress me both with its cleaning power as well as ultimately its lower cost per useage.
.
I read the instructions and followed them using the small drop of cleaner as directed and found it was an excellent hand cleaner. I explained its usage to my employees, four young mechanics who washed their hands several times a working day.
.
I watched the usage and when the bottle ran out set it aside. The customer returned in a few days and asked how it worked. I said it worked really well and noticed that as I said that he was opening an order pad. I then told him I did not want any because quite simply his product was too expensive to use in the shop setting.
.
Then he began to explain how many drops there were in a bottle and how many handwashing that would be. I pointed out to him that the employess were not all that sparing with the juice and that every time they used it they were using a weeks worth of product. I did not have the time nor inclination to accompany each of them to the washroom all day to monitor the process.
.
I found that the "Go-Jo" did the job acceptably well, and the gob of muck that they used provided the emotional fulfillment they seemed to require at a much lower cost. And far less agravation.
.
Sure concentration had its advantages but not in the part of the real world where we operated.

In terms of commercial usage of a product, I agree. Employees who don't pay for the product generally don't respect it and waste it like water.

However, my experiences with the Amway line have not been in using it in the setting you described above. I was raving how the products that I purchase have benefited me when I used them in my home, and not by my "employees".

User avatar
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Imalawman » Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:07 pm

Enough! Stop with the personal attacks - everyone. Back on point. Beagles, make another post like the one you did about Nikki and you'll be taking an imposed break.

Back on point.

I think that there is some money being made in quixtar. Not as much as people like to think, but there is some money. My point is that when you finally make enough to quit your full-time job (which most people never do) the large portion of that revenue is derived from the media portion of the business. To date, I have not met anyone who was considered an important figure in Amway that did not benefit from the speeches and tapes that he made. Beagles, the money that you (or your friends) pay for the tapes, seminars, other swag, goes somewhere doesn't it? My friends who are still in the 'biz spend thousands each year on that stuff. It goes somewhere right? You really think they're selling everything at cost? If so, that's some trust.

So, what I'm saying is this. If someone says that they are making enough off of product sales to support themselves full-time, I want to see some sort of verification. No, I will not be happy unless I see some independent proof.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6359
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby wserra » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:05 pm

Ima is quite correct as to how this thread got way off topic. I've split all of the "income verification" posts (including my own) to an appropriately-named new thread.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4958
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:22 pm

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:
I have not researched this but the story I heard was that the original symbol for a US (gold/silver based) dollar was a capital "S" laid in top of a Capital "U", signifying a "US dollar". Then I heard the lower part of the "U" got erased leaving only two vertical lines in the symbol. I had heard that identified dollars that were gold/silver based. I heard the bankers dropped one of the two vertical lines when the dollar was no longer backed by gold/silver.

I've not researched this online. Who knows ?????


Actually, it has to do with our early coinage history. The Spanish Milled Dollar, or silver "piece of eight" (reales), was produced in heavy quantities due to the many silver mines in Central and South America. A lot of these coins found their way up to British North America, and became a vital part of the local currency (due, in part, to the British providing nowhere near enough coin of the realm to our ancestors). This coin was also referred to as the "peso". The symbol for "peso" was usually a capital P overlaid with a capital S; and in time the loop on the P was dropped. When the new United States set standards for its early coinage, the silver dollar was required to be of the same weight and fineness as the SMD; and the S over P symbol grew to stand for the new dollar coin as well.

Or so goes the prevailing story. There are others, as a look at Wikipedia or a Google search will show; but this story is the one most widely accepted.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

South Jordan

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby South Jordan » Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:05 pm

I am sure that Monavie is cure the big disease as cancer on our body. And it prevents from other bacterial disease.
Last edited by wserra on Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Remove commercial link.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6359
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby wserra » Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:15 pm

And because "South Jordan" is sure that this stuff "is cure the big disease", the rest of us should buy it - or, better yet, sign up in his downline. I know I'm convinced.

No commercials or commercial links on this board, in any form. First and last warning.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Nikki

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Nikki » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:43 am

You really should soften that stance. Let him post all the commercial links he wants -- as soon as he posts a copy of the certificate of completion of his ESL course.


Return to “MLM Scams Forum (as if any of them aren't)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest