NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/misc/consumer/18829

Text File | 1992-11-08 | 1.6 KB | 36 lines

Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!cmcl2!psinntp!psinntp!itsmail1.hamilton.edu!jmalloy
From: [e-mail] (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Yup, Amway's a scam
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:33:12 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lou Kvitek) writes:
>To Joel's original post I respond (also in alt.business.multi-level):
>
>I'd be upset too.  Whoever these people are they are really conducting
>their business in an extremely unprofessional manner.
>
>Of course, one must remember that every Amway distributor is in
>business for themselves.  That's right, they do NOT (repeat, DO NOT)
>work FOR Amway.  They work for themsleves.  Amway merely has agreed
>to provide them products and pay them bonuses.  Amway does not teach
>a single solitary distributor how to conduct business.  They merely
>publish guidelines on business conduct - but, as you have seen, they
>do not (cannot) enforce them.
>

This certainly sounds odd.  Plenty of corporation set high standards for
their independently-owned dealers.  When dealers fail to serve the
public properly, the corporation may, indeed, cancel their relationship
with a given dealer.  What you're saying, then, is that Amway either
doesn't have high standards of dealer conduct or doesn't care to enforce
them.  Regardless, it makes Amway look bad.

Joe
[e-mail]