« Did You Know? | Main | New IBOAI Board Members »
October 17, 2005
Monday Reader Mail: 59
By QBlog in Reader Mail
Today's Reader Mail mentions media coverage of Quixtar. Unfortunately, there isn't much reliable media coverage about Quixtar and the general public is left searching for independent information. As always, my comments in bold.
name: Brian
date: October 10, 2005
message: I was approached by my co-worker's husband regarding the Quixtar "business opportunity" needless to say, I turned it down. He was very polite about it, telling me, "The business isn't for everybody" and then cautioned me against believing everything I read on the internet, because there's no system in place to enforce accuracy.
Such logic always cracks me up. What they really mean is "don't believe anything you read on the Internet unless it's positive towards Quixtar."
Thank goodness! Now I don't have to donate my money to all those nigerian businessmen.
For the real meat of this message, following his cautionary tale of dubious internet information, he told me to check out the Quixtar article that should be appearing in the Oct. 14th USA Today. While it might not be the king of journalistic quality, you might want to take a look at the article, and disseminate some justified feedback to your adoring (and sometimes unadoring) public.
Thanks Brian. I checked USA Today online and didn't find any articles about Quixtar. I know that Quixtar ran an ad in USA Today on October 7 (as part of the DSA advertising insert) but I don't see any articles. Maybe the article was only in the print version? Anyone have a copy of the October 14 USA Today?
Comments
Oh that should have been stand up for the scheme that they love so much. Oops.
"If you can't destroy the message, destroy the messenger" Garry Sadden-former emerald
After emailing that, I eagerly went to the USA Today site and checked out articles, did a little search on Quixtar, and came up empty-handed. It could have been delayed - something not uncommon in print, or the IBO could have been refering to the Oct. 7th ad.
Mr. Frankenberry Crunch (heh heh; remember that cerial?)
What you say is correct. I am not afraid to debate my absolutely narrow minded view of a biblically sound Christianity here or anywhere that the topic deams appropriate. Unlike other faith systems, I openly read other things on faiths, businesses, etc. I have found many holes in many arguements by doing that. We MUST be solid AND objective on our views; but what we can't afford to do is accept a post-modern view on things, it is not sound.
X
The hilarous thing is that I think you and I would be on the same side in a lot of arguments, but that you are a devout Christian and I am a confident Atheist. You are absolutely correct about postmodernism, though perhaps I am not the best person to discuss it as it makes no sense to me. I think it is a weird offshoot of deconstructionism, but I could be wrong, I'll have to do some research, which I have neglected till now because postmodernism never struck me as being worthy of my attention. Anyhow, I hope our stark difference of opinion regarding the existence of the Almighty will not preclude us from finding commonground regarding Quixtar. The really fascinating thing regarding the idea of the internet discussions of Quixtar is that it will force a change in the QMOs. As information becomes easily available to the public, the potential for abuse by the kingpins will diminish. If the tool money dries up, what will be the implications for Quixtar? For those of us who find this issue interesting, the next few years should provide some fascinating stuff. Stay tuned.
Add this to your IBO's new list of lies. The company never uses traditional advertising instead paying bonus payments to IBO instead. Doesn't using the USA Today change one of there long held corporate policy of not advertising? I know instead they prefer keeping a low profile so IBO can rely on close contacts and the perception that quixtar is not Amway, avoiding ScAmays former awful reputation. Average IBO's earnings $115. Approximate cost just for those goods 300 to 500. Unless you retail or have a huge bottom to your pyramid sorry downline you will be at a net loss. That is why I don’t believe the business is honest moral or ethical Even though it has the most ambitious honest moral people trying to build it. It fundamentally flawed from a policy/incentive standpoint. For those of you who loved STP and our looking for alterative profitable venture I seriously advise CUTCO/ vector marketing you can make 300 an appointment if you good at sales. In Quixtar it will take 3-5 years to even gross that.
I haven't been around much, but I've been posting on this site for a while, and I too, Frankenberry, am an atheist, and a critbot. And I agree with everything you say, and never have a problem with other critbots when it comes to Quixtar related opinions despite our religious differences.
Only the Quixbots tend to throw red herrings into the argument, such as what about Wal-Mart critics. I have no idea what a Wal-Mart critic has to do a Quixtar critic only to show that other companies have critics too. One has to examine the merits of the critiques to show any real parallel, but Quixbots never do so. They just want to throw in the red herring.
Ad hominem attacks, however, do happen on both sides. I wish it would stop as attacking the messenger instead of the message adds little to the conversation, and is often the last recourse when all other arguments have failed.
Still, in the end, I think Frankenberry will agree the best thing to do is research all information, pro, con and neutral and come up with your own conclusions. If you search only one side, you will miss the big picture and have a skewed view. Too man pro-Quixtar people have done this only to have their eyes opened years later. But those of us who have done our complete due diligence and research all sides can make a much more informed decision. And how anyone can argue we shouldn't do that is trying to hide something.
Ten years ago, performing "due diligence" on the Amway opportunity was nearly impossible. There were perhaps two books on the subject, and those were dismissed by people in the business as being "losers with nothing better to do with their lives than complain about winners." There may have been a couple of magazine articles, if you were fortunte enough to know someone who clipped magazine articles about Amway (not too many of those). And there was word-of-mouth, he-said-she-said, us vs. them. Very little real information was forthcoming, and most of what there was came from the kingpins.
Nowadays, there's a ton of material available on the Web, including legal decisions and internal memos, and a number of other resources, including Eric Scheibeler's book, Merchants Of Deception.
It's amazing to me that people would still be signing up for Quixtar with so much controversial information available to them. It just goes to illustrate the depth of the deception.
There's still a lot of work to do.
PW
PW,
It's because people inherently want to believe that there is something better out there for them. They just don't realize that it's not Quixtar.
dmm> "Ad hominem attacks, however, do happen on both sides. I wish it would stop as attacking the messenger instead of the message adds little to the conversation, and is often the last recourse when all other arguments have failed"
Scott N> I agree 100%.
There might actually be a way to guage how effective this information has been. What percentage of potential recruits are willing to join upon seeing the plan nowadays as opposed to years past. If it is harder to sell the plan, this could be a sign that there has been some effect. How many prospects see this information and are swayed by it? I'm no statistician, but there should be some method of figuring it out. I think Joe has a point though, I buy a lottery ticket before every drawing even though I know that the odds against my winning are incredibly high, but I figure it's worth the dollar to give it a shot. I must say however that if in order to be eligible to win the lottery I would have to harass complete strangers at the grocery store and bug my friends until they didn't want to talk to me anymore I wouldn't bother.
Frankenberry> I think Joe has a point though, I buy a lottery ticket before every drawing even though I know that the odds against my winning are incredibly high, but I figure it's worth the dollar to give it a shot. I must say however that if in order to be eligible to win the lottery I would have to harass complete strangers at the grocery store and bug my friends until they didn't want to talk to me anymore I wouldn't bother.
Joe> That's exactly right. In showing the plan it's portrayed that finding 6 will make you a 6 figure residual income. You can then have all this time and money freed up for your family, etc. It sounds appealing on the surface and then most people end up quitting because it's much harder than shown in the plan, requires much more effort than shown in the plan, it has the cost of tools and other business expenses and the results are often not measurable in terms of dollars. People go into the business thinking it is like a lottery. In other words, I can risk $50 to sign up, etc and possibly make a fortune, especially when the diamond will show you what's possible and not what's likely.
According to an angry post on the local area watch blog, Tony claims he has been banned from here. Is this true? Has his use of profanity and his uncontrollable rage prompted this? How unfortunate. I wish him well, as long as this doesn't mean that he has to fleece other people to get ahead. Maybe whoever fills Tony's spot will be less angry. Good luck Tony, keep chasing that dream, just don't step on other people to get there.
Yeah, it's been quiet on this blog without Tony. I think he said he's been banned before but got reinstated.
Hey Frankenberry,
Which Blog does Tony say that on?
www.localareawatch.org is where he is spreading his rant now rocket.
I am amused by his tyrades, too bad he posted his garbage once too many times and got banned. If its true.
He was a great example to the Quix prospects of what mentality to look forward to in the biz.
positively unyeilding.
Rocket
You can link to it from here by going down to the Quixtar chatter entry for "Is the pyramid crumbling".
Actually you link to it from the October 5 quixtar chatter about the Grand Rapids blogger.
Tony> Whatever BILL - I posted yesterday as "The Man", and put in the phrase "those who call it a Ponzi are a bunch of "[deleted by hack editor]" and several other witty variations and someone deleted the whole thing! I saw it posted and then it was gone. And you confirm what I hear about you. I can't stand people who shoot from the hip and either don't bother to get all the facts, or have them and just don't care cause they're bitter!
Good day!
Posted by: Tony | Oct 07, 2005 at 05:15
Joe> I guess Tony makes a habit of posting under other names even on other blogs. Tony, if you get reinstated, you care to explain why you do that?
FYI I visited that local area watch website and found some of Tony's posts there. It's pretty much what he's posted here.
It's kind of funny that a blog about Grand Rapids has become a proxy war site for Quitar blog. I notice that Tony says that he came in here as a level headed quixtar advocate, and that df and rocket drove him to profanity through provocation. I do not know if this is true, having only recently started visiting this blog, but this does prompt a question. Why has Tony shown up on other blogs like localareawatch and epetroworldland fuming from the get-go and making people sour on him almost immediately? It is certainly improper for a participant to call the moderator a Commie POS just for trying to uphold a standard of decency in the discussion. If you are reading this Tony, I am not bashing on you, just giving some constructive criticism. Now, Tony posits that without him this blog would die, I do not wish to give this credence, so this will be the last time I mention him until/unless he returns. It is, I think, possible to have an animated discussion without him. Once again, good luck Tony, you say that you will build your Quixtar business with integrity, I hope so, but remember what they say about the road to hell. Good intentions aren't enough to ensure a ethical outcome, so I advise you to constantly evaluate your ethical position or it is quite possible you could end up one of those bad uplines.
http://www.dsa.org/general/index.cfm?fuseaction=showItem&documentID=584
here is the article published by the DSA Direct Selling assoication.
Barney,
You are an absolute shame. You disgust me at the pure lies you have written. You should be ashamed of yourself.
'can't destroy the message, destroy the messenger'...sick and disgusting misquote...you are nothing but a 'tabloid' loser! ?J is your name?
Isn't Barney a purple dinosaur?
Yeah, Barney is a big purple dinosaur and it seems as thought Barney..of this Blog...is about as smart as that Big Dinosaur!! NOT.
And the real name is....Jason!!...by the way you don't have a brother do you??
I have been a very low active IBO for 2 years now and I must say I agree with the fact that it seems sometimes that the "Support Material" is the main drive behind Quixtar. On the other hand you would have to be completly ignorant to think that the business concept that Quixtar presents is not a good. My personal opinoin is that the business plan is flawless, it is the people in the business that make the flaws. Do you have to be Diamond to be a succesful IBO...I would be happy with Eagle. I have yet to see anyone show me a business plan that enables me to make more money then the average person in the US of A. Is it a over night process...no...but it does solely lay on me to make it happen...not my upline...not my downline. So what it the products are not always cheaper then Walmarts products...you and I both know there are people in this world who buy products for the quality not the price. IF you tried this business and failed...don't blame Quixtar for you lack of drive!!
Binderwimp> Is it a over night process...no...but it does solely lay on me to make it happen...not my upline...not my downline.
Joe> Yes it does involve your downline. You can't be an eagle or be able to leverage your efforts without downline. If you were soley responsible, then your success would be based solely on your ability to retail products to customers.
You have not done your research...there are plently of people who make butt load of money retailing the products. Here lies the problem...everyone has forgotten that this is a product business...without the products you have nothing. No doubt..your downline can help you reach higher levels...but no "one" person can make or break your success. To me...that is the beauty behind this oppurtunity. Who really cares about the "Title" or "pin level" you reach...making money is what is all about. Now, I know you don't know me from Adam, but I will suceed in this...slowly but surely. I will do my best to serve my customer/cleints and if I pick up a downline here and there great...if not...so what...there is money in retail!!
Binder,
Good luck to you. An IBO focused on making money by strictly retailing is rare and I give you credit for doing the business right.
Thanks for your fairness, It is nice to know you do see the positive side of what this business can really be...I strongly agree there are tons of people giving this business a bad rep...it makes it hard to operate a honest business...most people have there mind made up becasue of what some other loser has done in trying to explain who it quixtar works and in the process missled the person causing them to have false hopes and inaccurate expectations.
you want to know something ironic...I started these last few comments with the intent to defend Quixtar so I could feel better about doing it for myself...and in the process realized that I don't need to defend Quixtar...I just need to do things to the best of my ablilty with the utmost intergrity..being as striaght forward as possible...Thanks Joe...you have helped my confidence.
This notion that there's no system to maintain accuracy on the internet is an expression of muddled thinking. What system exists to promote accuracy in any form of discourse? As long as claims are verifiable and readers are able to take into account any biases they detect they can usually sort through what is true and false. This is preferable to "officially approved" information, which is often foisted on the public as absolute truth. Give me an open marketplace of ideas any day. Given enough time, debate, and examination of evidence the web is vastly superior to the hierachical forms of information dissemination of years past (government proclamations, news organizations). That Quixtar advocates are so afraid of the open exchange of information indicates that maybe they are afraid that their position is not strong enough to withstand scrutiny. I wouldn't discourage someone from reading Karl Marx just because I have profound disagreements with his philosophy.
I must give Tony some credit here, even though he is, in my opinion wrong about nearly everything, at least he is willing to come here and defend his postion (though I think he is fighting an unwinnable battle). That being said it is no good to tell people to go to thisbiznow or quixtarinfo to get the "real story". These sites are useful only in that they give the organization's position on things, so an accurate overall picture of quixtar and QMOs is unlikely to be found there. Sites like this and amquix info are better because they present pro quixtar arguments, even if only to knock them down. Maybe if IBOs weren't discouraged from going to "negative sites" there would be more people like Tony, willing to debate the merits of "the business". If Quixtar and the QMOs are really so concerned about "misconceptions" about their plan, they would encourage their advocates to come here and other such sites to stand up the scheme that they love so much. Perhaps they would respond that the IBOs should be too busy "building the business" to debate its propriety with the "critbots". Fine, but they shouldn't complain about the quality of information on the internet if their only recourse is to engage in underhanded techniques to keep ideas they don't like from reaching people. Oh for those of you like Zarathustra and X, I hope that my argument is not taken to support a Hegelian dialectic idealism, that was not my intent.
Posted by: Frankenberry | October 17, 2005 9:21 PM