« Google Sundays | Main | Quixtar Myth Busters »
February 7, 2005
Monday Reader Mail: 31
By QBlog in Reader Mail
The Reader Mail this week is one that makes me sort of "cringe." Read it and then I'll explain.
name:John T.
date: February 6, 2005
message: Wow!! Glad I decided to look this compnay up before getting involved. Did not know it was Amway reincarnated. I just ordered the energy drink at a local race and the guy selling it wanted to talk to me about promoting the product at the races I do. Now that I have the "complete" picture, I will not be getting involed. Thanks for the info.
John
The reason I "cringe" when I read such emails (even though I genuinely appreciate getting them) is that Quixtar IBOs view such experiences as business lost to those "negative Web sites." I believe such hasty conclusions are inaccurate and based on faulty logic. Coincidentally the recording industry uses similar logic when calculating revenue lost to peer-to-peer file swappers. The RIAA believes that every song freely traded on the Net translates into a music sale that was "stolen" (Scott Rosenberg's Blog). The reality is that such assumptions are only partly true at best. If a man downloads a Beatles song after hearing it on the radio, chances are great that he wouldn't have bought that same song if it weren't available freely. He's willing to go through the trouble of finding the song on some file swapping network but he's not motivated enough to spend the money on the song should such networks cease to exist.
And many IBOs take the RIAA mentality when looking at the Web. They see people like John T. who decline the business based on Web information but they fail to understand that such people probably weren't all that interested anyway. Maybe they are using the "negative Web info" as a polite way to decline the recruitment pitch? "I would love to do this Quixtar thing but I just read so much bad stuff on the Web, so you know. No thanks." The focus shifts towards blaming the Web info, and away from the fact that the person just really isn't IBO material (whatever that is).
I know several Quixtar IBOs who thoroughly researched the business on the Web, read all the "negative info" and still became IBOs. Why? Because that's what they really wanted to do and they believe they are IBO material. One guy I know believes that the "negative sites" help his business.
In fact, the Quixtar BackBone project demonstrated that some hard working IBOs perceive value in the so-called "negative sites."
From IBO Sharon Schlesinger answering the questions "How has this blog specifically helped your Quixtar business?"
I have gotten some ideas for retailing a few of our products. I've picked up some solid answers to criticisms about Quixtar. I have heard about some strange experiences that some of the fellow bloggers report, and I am on the alert for such behaviors in my own organization. Overall, I understand the business in a fuller sense.
The point I'm making is that many Quixtar IBOs seem too willing to blame their recruiting problems on the "negative Web sites" instead of realizing that the two (difficult recruiting and "negative Web sites") may not be related at all. Maybe Americans are just less likely to participate in MLM businesses than they were 20 years ago? People change. Cultures change. Societies change. I encourage IBOs to be skeptical of those who say that "negative Web sites" decrease revenue. Be critical thinkers. Don't follow the herd. And above all, don't be like the RIAA. ;o)
Comments
Qblog,
As you know, I am 100% pro Q. I enjoy reading your blog and recommending it to prospects as having non biased and credible information.
Okay, great Mikey...glad to have 'you' back.
Now you can explain your famouse Margarita recipe...you know, the one made with XS and Vodka?!?!?
Poseur.
That being said, negative web sites hurt recruiting LOL
I almost decided not to join because of the negative web sites. The only reason I decided to go ahead and try it is because a family member paid the initial costs to sponsor me in (under them of course).
Posted by: nb1ks | February 8, 2005 8:05 PM