« - Quixtar Crack? | Main | Blogs In Perspective »
November 17, 2004
The Passport Blog Myth
By QBlog in
I've made it clear that Quixtar is waging a full-scale Web Initiative specifically designed to manipulate search engine results (which may violate Google's terms of service), hoping that such endeavors will somehow improve its reputation and the reputations of individual Quixtar leaders.
One small, but not insignificant, part of Quixtar's Web campaign seems to be an effort to shift the focus of online conversations (in forums, blogs and newsgroups) from discussing Quixtar to criticizing Passport, an MLM started by a former Quixtar Diamond who is outspoken about Quixtar's problems. Using a classic "logical fallacy" (Changing the Subject) these anonymous Quixtar apologists work to erode public confidence in Passport and its leader, Bo Short.
The Passport Apologists
There are also Passport apologists. Many of them are former Quixtar IBOs and a few have been outspoken (like Passport CEO Bo Short) about the troubles they observed and experienced while involved with Quixtar. Some Quixtar apologists argue, quite convincingly, that such criticism is identical to the criticisms directed at Passport. They theorize that Passport is waging a Web initiative of its own and that Quixtar is right to respond in kind. While I've received confirmation of a Quixtar Web Initiative I have yet to uncover evidence of a Passport Web initiative but I'm not ready to completely rule out the possibility.
The theory of a Passport Web initiative (similar to Quixtar's) is primarily buttressed by the claim that Passport apologists are publishing numerous blogs criticizing Quixtar while praising Passport. The problem with that theory is that the "numerous blogs" are Missing In Action. They simply don't exist. Like the Critical Web Site Myth, there is a similar "Passport Blog Myth" endorsed by various Quixtar apologists and one guy in particular.
The List
To tally the number of active blogs run by Passport apologists I've set up some very simple criteria. A blog will be included in the list if it:
- Has at least two months of posts
- Has been updated within the past 30 days
- Includes some sort of link to a Passport business site
- Specifically criticizes Quixtar or its related businesses and leaders
- Must be clearly run by a Passport Associate
Next I went out searching for blogs that fit the criteria. What I discovered wasn't a sophisticated Google Bombing campaign but just a handful of blogs run by a couple of Passport apologists. Here's the list:
- http://formerdiamond.typepad.com/formerdiamond/ - While this blog hasn't been updated in 30 days, it is authored by the Passport CEO so I felt it deserved inclusion. It also doesn't inlcude a link to any Passport business sites (nor does it make mention of Passport at all) but still, he's the CEO so it's on the list.
- http://mlmdojo.tblog.com/ - This blog is updated sporadically and coincidentally doesn't spend much time criticizing Quixtar, perhaps because the author was never an IBO. The only times Quixtar is mentioned is as a response to discussions on other blogs.
- http://www.mlmtoday.blogspot.com/ - This is a frequently updated blog that routinely criticizes Quixtar. It easily makes the list.
- http://mlmblog.typepad.com/blog/ - After I started this blog and NSAIBO started MLM Whatever Blog, Ty Tribble started MLM Blog. For a while, our three blogs were the only blogs that primarily covered Quixtar-related topics. MLM Blog is definitely the first Passport apologist blog.
And that's it my friends. That's the BIG PASSPORT WEB INITIATIVE. Did I miss any? Toss in a couple of roaming message board posts and you've got the makings of a real Internet Marketing Onslaught I tell ya.
Criticizing Competition
I'm not a big fan of slamming the competition and therefore, I'm not a big fan of the way a couple of Passport-related blogs slam Quixtar. Whether they admit it or not, they have something to gain from Quixtar criticisms. I'd much rather see a business grow simply on its own merits, without criticizing other businesses. I feel that way about Passport, Quixtar, Procter & Gamble and any other business. There's certainly room for pointing out differences, like Apple pointing out how the Mac OS is superior to Windows, but if Apple issued a "see, I told you so" press release every time a new Windows flaw was discovered I'd be somewhat disappointed in everyone's favorite Cupertino company.
However, should the Passport bloggers remain silent about any experiences or opinions regarding their Quixtar competition? That's a tricky question to answer and I'll leave that for them to decide. On the one hand I wouldn't want to see anyone remain silent about something he feels passionate about but on the other hand, there's a very real conflict of interest present. Unlike the Passport bloggers I have the luxury of not having to worry about such dilemmas since I have nothing to gain if you join Quixtar, Passport or any other MLM (nor do I have anything to lose if you don't).
There is one unique characteristic shared by the Passport bloggers and it's that they aren't anonymous and that they make their Passport affiliation very clear. This is not always true of the Quixtar apologists, except in the case of IBOs who refuse to endorse any tool systems (like David Robison). So maybe the Passport bloggers regain some credibility by fully disclosing their motives and putting their names into the public spotlight? I don't know but I do wonder why most Quixtar IBOs choose to remain anonymous on the Web. There's nothing wrong with that but it's kind of weird that most of the so-called Quixtar criticism sites aren't run anonymously while most of the Quixtar apologists sites are run anonymously. Wonder why that is?
Comments
Whether or not I gain from people joining Passport based on reading blog doesn't change the facts about Quixtar.
The majority of Quixtar IBO's lose money every month, the majority of Passport associates do not. Whether or not people make a significant amount of money in Passport depends only on the amount of products they sell to end users either through retailing or to a lesser extent the MLM compensation pool.
Of course I am a Passport apologist and proud of it. I have seen dozens of people putting thousands of dollars back into their family budget as a result of joining Passport and leaving the Quixtar tools scam.
I was wondering exactly who was prommulgating the theory that Passport was 'google-bombing', so I clicked the link...fortunately, I was able to stop the page form loading before I had to actullay read any of that guy's drivel.
I have no problem with a coherent, well-though out argument, but that guy is like the old SNL skit..."I know you are, but what am I???".
QBlog:
Why don't you open your eyes. Bo Short's anti-Quixtar, pro-Passport marketing message is way beyond blogs. Why don't you include the following?
TV (dateline, etc.)
websites other than blogs (larsen, etc.)
blogs with other topics getting bombed with anti-Quixtar info. (notebook review, etc.)
Do you have blinders on?
open your eyes:
You're saying that larsen's site is pro-passport?
You're saying thta somehow Bo SHort controls the media and coerced dateline to do that story?
Your're implying that any other blog that gets 'bombed' with anti-Quixtar material fits the critreria Q-blog listed, including #s 3 & 5?
That's quite a conspiracy theory. AmQuix isn't important enough to garner such attention, real or imagined. And that's probably a good thing for them, cause the FTC and the IRS would be descending like flies on a carcass if the public outcry ever became great enough.
Technically, I think there is no such thing as a Passport Apologist site.
In order for that to happen, Passport would have had to have been villified originally.
Chronologically, first there was Amway and then came Schwartz et al....Amway reps began responding to the negative sites with apologist type comments and emails.
Amway Fact or Fiction came along as one of the first Apologist site for Amway.
Fast Forward to Qblog, and at about the same time Bo Short's Passport.
Passport Blogs came then. Nothing Apologetic-wise in their original intent, unless you make the claim that they were and are MLM apologetic, but they blogged not in defense of Passport.
I could indeed be a Quixtar Apologist, in that I do "defend" the company and MLM in general.
Qrush is indeed an attacker of Passport, and thus now Passport bloggers must now "defend" their position to him.
Even I have had to, on one or two occasions.
But, I don't feel they have reached "apologetics" status....YET.
But if more people read AND believe what QRush says concerning Passport's financial status and reporting disclosures; Passport bloggers may indeed have to spend more time on Passport Apologetics and less time on the Passport business.
It all depends on the credence that QRush may or may not attain.
David,
It's not just Qrush. It's in various comments here and some message boards and even some other blogs (eMarine for example). Maybe apologist wasn't the best word but I think it comes closest to describing what's happening. Both are defending their respective businesses using various tactics. Advocate may be a better word but not all the posts are clearly advocating Quixtar or Passport.
Anyway, the message is still clear. Some would like to portray Passport as being part of some massive Web campaign and the facts just don't bear that out. Maybe there is a campaign but it's miniscule in scale.
Just like the Critical Web Site myth, there is a Passport Blog myth. People say, "There are all these Passport blogs" when in reality, there are only a four or five at the very most, and really only three that I can find.
That's the main point of this post. Debunking the Passport Blog Myth. I think there are many myths out there that deserve debunking (the small business failure statistic to name one) and this is just one of those.
Anyway, I'll think about how I used the word "apologist." But don't miss the forest for the trees please.
I'm sorry if I'm adding fuel to the fire but the worst part about anti-passport posters is that they don't not discuss thier issues. They simply post nonsense as if they were spaming a business.
I understand why, but I think that makes for another fundamental difference between the two camps.
QBlog wrote: I don't know but I do wonder why most Quixtar IBOs choose to remain anonymous on the Web. There's nothing wrong with that but it's kind of weird that most of the so-called Quixtar criticism sites aren't run anonymously while most of the Quixtar apologists sites are run anonymously. Wonder why that is?
>I think it's very very wierd. A very interesting observation. Shouldn't it be other way around? Critics should be anonymous and IBOs should be using their real name? Who is hiding here? And why is that?
An exception would be non-system IBOs, David Robison, Marc, Fred etc. Where are the system IBOs? I'm just asking for a real system IBO blog, not a fake blog part of some web campaign.
I have saved so much money from quitting Quixtar.I am selling Passport products pretty easy and haven't had to drive to North Carolina yet!Customers buying products and rebuying and not having to spend all that money on the system is sweet.
Qblog,
I'm not missing the forest for the trees.
I understand the myth.
I just thought "apologist" was the wrong term, and needed clarifyig. And no I wasn't trying to edit your post or am I asking for a retraction. :D
And yes, I agree the Passport effort is miniscule compared to the other "web initiative" blogs.
Although 2 years ago, one might have thought your effort was miniscule.
Ty is pretty high among Google rankings, by his own admission and Dave S just reported his 7000th site visit.
Whether they have an "agenda" of sales or a penchant against Quixtar; their results are impressive none the less.
Imran says,
"I'm just asking for a real system IBO blog, not a fake blog part of some web campaign. "
A new "system" IBO is now blogging, I mention him in my latest blog entry.
I'm not sure how much he'll blog about the "system" but he is using his real name, and taking comments
David Robinson wrote: Dave S just reported his 7000th site visit.
>Well David, a good and consistent blogger like Dave S is bound to get traffic! He made his first post in June 7. His blog got loads of info.
My first post was on July 27th and I am 4000. And just like this blog, I am not doing it for business purposes.
I'm not saying 7000 visits is not a good thing. I applaud Dave S. Just saying it is an effective blog.
I have a little over 2000 visits myself, but since my blog is not about one particular subject , I fear it doesn't show up a lot in searches.
But I'll keep plugging away.
MLM Blog,
I don't know much about Passport, but I have already referred 2 people to join. I am a Quixtar-Affiliated IBO, but if someone doesn't like Q, but they still want opportunity, I think Passport might be a good option.
Whenever I have made a specific claim in these comments I have been asked to back it up. So I would like to ask the same of you for the following claim you made:
"The majority of Quixtar IBO's lose money every month, the majority of Passport associates do not."
Without proof that is just opinion, and I would have to disagree and say that there is no proof that the majority of Q IBO's lose money every month, nor is there proof the the majority of Passport associates make money every month.
Then again, you can easily prove me wrong by providing proof for those 2 claims, or at least pointing out that they are just opinions of yours. Thanks :)
--
QBlog wrote: "I think there are many myths out there that deserve debunking (the small business failure statistic to name one) and this is just one of those."
Don't tell me that you also don't believe the 95% small business failure statistic. This statistic is confirmed by the Small Business Administration. If you really wanted to debunk it, wouldn't you just call them and ask them if it is true?
None of these critics made that effort at all. When I started up one of my businesses several years back, I remember going in for a microloan from the SBA. They quoted that exact statistic at that point. It was also in the literature. It is also in articles on their website. They even use that statistic when they give speeches sometimes.
I am kinda tired of hearing critics say that is not a true statistic, when the SBA says it is themselves. If the SBA is wrong, then that is a fair argument, but clearly come out and say that they were wrong and that is where the source came from.
--
I think the anti-quixtar/pro-passport theory is much simpler than we are putting it. I would say that the pro-quixtar crowd is under the assumption that the anti-quixtar sites must have something to gain, otherwise why would they put so much effort into them. This is a valid argument actually, but that does not mean that it is fact that they are secretly paid for by passport associates. But it does not rule it out either.
Companies like Passport thrive off of exposing the flaws of Quixtar and then showing how their company has none of those flaws. I bet if you looked at the percentage of Passport associates that are ex-ibo's the figures would be staggering.
So it only goes for speculation that Passport could be "sponsoring" sites to talk negatively about Quixtar and expose flaws and spin things to turn off IBO's from the opportunity.
This would benefit Passport because just as someone starts looking deeper into the critics view of Q, they happen to start hearing about Passport. Based on the info they have heard so far, they are perfectly set-up for a Passport business.
Of course this is all just speculation on my end, but based on what I have seen, this is what I would assume. So a pro-passport site wouldn't need to fit your qualifications in order to be part of their alleged "web initiative".
I hope that view made sense.
Chris,
Quixtar Average Active Income: $115
Quixtar Average System Expense: $150-300
= Net Loss
Average Passport Bonus Check: $82
Average Passport Expense: $10-20
= Net Profit
Secondly you can look at the the fact that less than 1% of Quixtar IBO's are tthe Platinum level or above and most consider Platinum to be break even point when involved with the system. Let's say 4,000 is break even...how many people are at 4,000PV and above in Quixtar? I would bet it is 10% or less. So it is safe to say that the average Quixtar IBO loses money, yes?
Bo Short was at the very least hesitant when I told him I was going to start the MLMBlog. So to say that Bo is behind some sort of Passport web conspiracy is downright laughable.
Then to take it a step further and say that Bo Short is behind Quixtar Blog....that's a good one.
Whether small businesses fail or do not fail, BO is evil or not, Passport is a satanic cult feeding of Quixtar IBOs or not, Quixtar remains a SCAM!
Here is all I saw in Quixtar: Misrepresentation. Or in other words, theft by deception.
And I'm not the only one.
Mo, I don't feel that I misrepresent the Quixtar opportunity. So it sounds like your problem was with how some IBO's presented the opportunity, but not in the actual company itself.
--
Ty, thanks for the quick answers to those questions. It sounds like Passports numbers are pretty decent. Are these statistics that are released by Passport so that someone like myself could see proof of them? I would love to see a source for them. Thanks.
As far as your losing money stats, I still disagree. You are assuming that EVERY active IBO is on the system, but this is nowhere near the truth. I have heard many IBO's say that they have a 10% rate of their IBO's on the system. What would you say is a decent rate? 40% would be pretty darn good for a heavy system promoter.
So those statistics that you quoted can NOT be realistically used to show how much a Q IBO profits after expenses. And I have many IBO's in my organization that are profitable.
If there system overhead is $150 and their paycheck is $151 then they are profitable. This can be attained by having 300pv member/clients/personal-use and just 3 IBO's at 100pv each which puts you at just the 9% level! At 1000pv profitability is very attainable.
I will agree that Q overhead might possibly be larger than Passport overhead for at least most IBO's. But on the flipside, there is a more proven track record, a larger company background, more proven success, and so on. These are all things that one would consider when comparing opportunities.
Passport is also pretty new to the scene so we have no idea how long it will survive. I am betting it will, but there is no track record yet. Plus, obviously less people have quit in Passport because it has not been around long enough to have comparable numbers.
So the actual comparison from Q to P is like apples to oranges in terms of size and statistics. I just mainly disagree with your stats that try to show IBO's that the average IBO is losing money. These are not factual. Do you have any actual proof of your statements?
Thanks for your input by the way, I appreciate it. :)
"There are three kinds of falsehood: lies, damned lies and statistics"
Benjamin Disraeli. British Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1878.
Chris, you aren't doing your credibility any favors.
Chris wrote: "Don't tell me that you also don't believe the 95% small business failure statistic. This statistic is confirmed by the Small Business Administration. If you really wanted to debunk it, wouldn't you just call them and ask them if it is true?"
So you agree that the best way to debunk that myth would be to confirm it with the SBA.
Read it and weep, my friend:
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/bh_sbe03.pdf
And Chris, don't call the SBA to confirm this Ambot falsehood you are currently spreading. As the following excerpt from the SBA article I linked to below indicates, they appear to be sick of those calls.
"Phillips and Kirchhoff (1989) mentioned the myth of 9 out of 10 new businesses closing in their first year. But using Dun & Bradstreet data they found that 76 percent of new firms were open after two years, 47 percent after four years and 38 percent after six years. These rates are substantially different than what is still commonly believed; more than ten years after the publication of their article, individuals still call the U.S. Small Business Administration looking for the unknown source of the alarming sound byte that 9 out of 10 businesses close in their first year."
Now, Chris, you say everyone should call the SBA and confirm if the Abmot statistic is true. Did you call?
Now all that remains now is for you to explain that what you wrote is not what you meant.
Ty,
Why do you consider being a direct distributor the "break even point?"
The Wisconsin AG found Amway Direct Distributors in the state of Wisconsin reported an average net loss of $918 per year to the IRS.
What would be the purpose of going direct and being in the top 1% of distributors if you are going to have a business loss of $918 a year? Now maybe these folks are making money and not reporting it or are exagerating their expenses to avoid taxes. Neither sounds like a good business strategy for long-term success.
The SBA statistics can be confusing. It is true that 95% of all small businesses fail in their first year. This number is arrived at looking at Schedule C's from the IRS. And it takes into account Quixtar and other MLM failures. We know that Quixtar has a 50% dropout rate/failure rate in the first year. Do a Schedule C for one year for Quixtar, quit and viola, you have a "business failure." In addition, people who "dabble" in things like freelance writing or contract work/consulting often times don't do so for a living, but just for extra money. For example, my wife did some consulting work last year, but to date, hasn't done any this year. She filled out a Schedule C for '03, but won't for '04. And again, we have another "business failure."
In contrast, if you look at lawdawg's numbers, it is dealing with businesses that have at least one employee, which it why they use the term "firm." And firms are much more successful, with the majority either still open after five years, or they have closed with a positive balance in that time (often times original owner sells the business). Of course, "firms" don't take into account individual salespeople/consultants/IBO's, and therefore don't have to take into account this failure rate.
dmm wrote:
"The SBA statistics can be confusing. It is true that 95% of all small businesses fail in their first year. This number is arrived at looking at Schedule C's from the IRS. And it takes into account Quixtar and other MLM failures. We know that Quixtar has a 50% dropout rate/failure rate in the first year"
Where do you get that data? The IRS doesn't track business failure statistics. They do track the number of Schedule Cs filed in a year and, in very general terms, the nature of the businesses.
Also, the failure rate for Awmay/Quixtar businesses is 75% for the first year according to the FTC.
I see Qrush's response to this topic is up at http://qrush_quixtar_blog.blogspot.com/
Looks like Qrush is again very fair and balanced.
It's official, Qrush is QBlog's bitch.
For added clarification, Fugi Saito (a regular contributor to the MLM Survivor's Club) was a senior business analyst for Dunn & Bradstreet and took part in compiling the statistics the SBA is talking about in the article I linked to.
One thing he points out that isn't mentioned in the SBA article is that D&B's study showed that 85% of businesses that close, close within the first five years. That is probably the source of the "statistic" that 85% of businesses fail in the first five years. Poor reading comprehension strikes again.
Chris,
Two things.
1. The day that Quixtar released independently verified numbers, I will ask Bo to do the same, deal?
2. What is the percentage of IBO's in your group that show a profit?
dmm is correct that the SBA study specifically addresses businesses that are considered ‘employers.’ The study correlates a higher rate of success for ‘employer’ businesses, but also correlates age, education and start-up capital. Interestingly, the study recognizes that there are NO databases of sufficient quality to make any meaningful analysis on non-employer businesses, but they expect some in the future.
Nonetheless, the 50/95% failure rates for (all) small businesses is showing itself to be a legend without basis, for a number of reasons. First was the assumption that if a business doesn’t exist after a period of time, it is considered a failure. Employee data showed that of business that ceased to exist, about 1/3 considered themselves successful at closing. I don’t consider that failure. Also, being sold to another company isn’t failure either.
I expect the analysis of non-employee businesses to show a high rate of attrition, but mostly because the business grows and becomes an employer (changes category), the owner either sells the business or joins another company as an employee. I don’t consider any of those a ‘failure’ either. Unfortunately, if you include all of the Quixtar/Amway ‘success’ stories, the number of true failures will be higher than if we were talking about ‘real’ businesses. But, I expect we will be able to account for the AmQuix failure rate influence on the overall failure rate because of the numbers we know already – at least 50% attrition at the 1 year mark. Seeing as AmQuix is has the 2-5 year plan, I will be hard to convince that 50% of the people quit before 1 year because they have meet their goals.
Back on topic, the ‘Passport’ web initiative myth, and other myths, are easily perpetuated through Quixtar channels because, and I would bet an IBO’s paycheck on this, Quixtar folks are probably the least web/computer and business savvy individuals out there. They just don’t have the ‘tools’ necessary (pun intended) to independently verify web based information, or even to judge if their ‘business’ is the opportunity it was sold to them as.
Porkchopjim wrote: I would bet an IBO’s paycheck on this,
> Porkchopjim, I had no idea you were that cheap! :D:D
>>It's official, Qrush is QBlog's bitch.
Oh come on, Imran, we've known that for quite sometime. Isn't it funny how the guy pimped himself out like that for his daddy and his diamond friends, and now he's the punchline to jokes?
Q=Qb (shorthand for Qrush is QBlog's bitch)
It's too bad this won't replace TPIN. :)
Good comments. I am glad that the critics are giving IBO's the credit for the 95% failure statistic. I had been hearing that statistic from professionals well before I became an IBO. I still hear it from non-quixtar professionals all the time.
I guess the problem I have is the way that critics blame IBO's for repeating garbage statistics they hear from their upline. I think that is just blatently rude for the critics to say things like that, especially when it is obvious that the 95% statistic is known nationwide by most people.
Here is a fun idea. Let's do a quick search to see if any non-quixtar sites are quoting that statistic...look what we have here. Thousands of websites are all quoting the 95% failure statistic. Here is just a handful of the first few I found. Check it out for yourself.
http://tinyurl.com/4j78w
http://tinyurl.com/6rwlg
http://tinyurl.com/729c8
http://tinyurl.com/6ly73
http://tinyurl.com/434ut
http://tinyurl.com/5m425
http://tinyurl.com/4o4x6
http://tinyurl.com/5anvy
http://tinyurl.com/42fc5
http://tinyurl.com/3oh9h
Man, I could go on forever with this list. I have heard representatives from the SBA say it themselves. I have heard very reputable business people use that statistic. Are they all wrong? Possibly. But why give IBO's such a hard time over this?
Here is a page on the SBA's own site quoting that statistic:
http://tinyurl.com/6g88x
Is the SBA in Quixtar too and just repeating garbage that they heard their upline tell them? Let's get real.
I did like the debate between critics here though over the different types of statistics that are out there.
--
Lawdawg, I did not see that your statistics proved that 95% of businesses do not fail in their first 5 years. To quote your source to IBO's when talking about business success/failure would be irrelevant because they wouldn't have employees. The 95% statistic is more relatable to their situation, therefore I feel it would be the better statistic to use for perspective.
Critics also give IBO's a hard time for comparing their business to franchising. But I also feel that this is an acceptable perspective. A franchise owner can buy into a system and start up a franchise and get it up and running, and then start up another and another, and so on. Similar opportunity is available to IBO's.
They can start up another IBO in their own business, and train them and get them up and running, then start up another, then another, and they don't have to be there physically running each business everyday. Both IBO's and franchise owners utilize the power of leverage and duplication.
--
Ty, your second request would require too much from me so I will respectfully decline. That would be a very large project for me to collect profit and loss statements from everyone in my organization, and many people file their taxes on different time frames. Many probably do not even keep a profit and loss statement, so it would just be a big endeavor for me, and it is not my responsibility.
However, I could probably make an estimated guess if we came up with a standard for activity. For instance, showing at least 15plans each month, 100personal volume, on the system, attending events, counseling with an upline mentor, at least 6 months minimum consistency.
In that case I can estimate that 100% of the people in my organization with that minimum commitment are profitable. Without that commitment, I, nor they, would consider it reasonable to be profitable.
So in effect, I guess that 100% of people in my organization are profitable. Although this is just an estimate based on what I personally know about their financial investments and income. I could be wrong because I am not sure what they are writing off for taxes.
As far as question 1, I would be satisfied to hear Passports own released numbers. Even if Passport chooses not to have an independent third party verify them. Do you have a source for Passport's current numbers to back up your claims?
Chris wrote:
"http://tinyurl.com/4j78w
http://tinyurl.com/6rwlg
http://tinyurl.com/729c8
http://tinyurl.com/6ly73
http://tinyurl.com/434ut
http://tinyurl.com/5m425
http://tinyurl.com/4o4x6
http://tinyurl.com/5anvy
http://tinyurl.com/42fc5
http://tinyurl.com/3oh9h
Man, I could go on forever with this list. I have heard representatives from the SBA say it themselves. I have heard very reputable business people use that statistic. Are they all wrong? Possibly. But why give IBO's such a hard time over this?"
I think all you've really proved here is that the 95% rule is an urban legend. Sure, both sides refer to this statistic, but which side is perpetuating the urban legend to promote recruitment?
imanewme,
Both sides are. If you search on the internet, you will find many instance of it's use for recruitment. Many times it is used as a foundation for what it takes to succeed in business. So you will hear the statistic referenced, and then you will hear a talk about "business systems" or "franchises" and the higher chances for success.
This is the context in which I have heard it used from IBO's. Which I must admit is not often. When Quixtar launched I heard it a few times, but I can't recall hearing it much since then. But I have used it myself, because I was taught it in school, and always heard professionals use it.
I linked to the SBA website using that statistic. Did you feel that was not proof enough?
I also read lawDawg's references. My point is simply this:
A myth isn't always false.
(Haven't you seen Mythbusters on Discover?)
Just because it's a common belief doesn't make it so.
If Galileo had never been willing to question the status quo, we'd still be afraid of falling off the edges of the earth.
It's not a question of validity. It's a question of the motives of the persons using the statistic.
What do the critics have to gain by citing that statistic?
What to supporters have to gain by citing that statistic?
I'm just sharing a thought process here. Is anyone following me here?
Chris write: Mo, I don't feel that I misrepresent the Quixtar opportunity. So it sounds like your problem was with how some IBO's presented the opportunity, but not in the actual company itself.
>Well I'm not alone. Many many ppl have been lied to. I have a recording of plan. I'll soon write an entry in my blog pointing where the lies are. There were 250 ppl in every open.
Mo,
I think it's great that you have an opinion and you are going to take a stand on it and try to make a difference. Go for it. Even though we disagree, I have respect for people that take a stand on what they believe in. If it is meant to be, it is meant to be.
I believe in the Quixtar opportunity, and I am similarly taking a stand on it in my own way, by building the business. I love watching how this business helps people and helps change lives for the better. I see it with my own eyes. This is very rewarding for me.
QBlog, you've hit the nail on the head with this one; the 'Pro Passport' conspiracy theory is one of the biggest gripes that I have with the Amway / Quixtar apologists.
Each one of Qrush's posts is the same as the other: "Those who criticise Quixtar are on Bo Short's payroll".
The argument: "YOUR A IDIOT. YU'LL BE SERVING ME DRINKS ON THE BEACH NEXT YEAR YOU BROKE LOOSER." is less convincing that the Passport conspiracy theory!
Posted by: The Buzzard | November 17, 2004 12:25 PM