« Hot MLM Secrets Revealed! | Main | The OCS Debate »
November 30, 2005
Don't Click
By QBlog in Miscellaneous
I warned you.
Lovingly PhotoShopped from this link.
Comments
I was actually hesitating, wondering whether or not to click :)
Then I saw the pr in the image name and assumed it was some sort of PageRank test... then I said "sod it" and clicked.
Excellent!
Really, what is this web site about? Foul language and pathetic ideas by equally pathetic people. Have you ever heard that eBay is the #1 online4 seller and that Quixtar is #2? Or is Quixtar a scam because it is #2?
Quixtar's a scam because we said so.
Much like IBO's saying 98% of people are dead or brok by age 65 - because their upline said so - without any factual basis.
Star Traveler sounds a lot like Tony. lol. but seriously please provide proof that Quixtar is the #2 online retailer. somehow I seriously doubt that.
StarTraveller, you got any sources to back that fact up?
My first question to you all is, why don't you back it up? It is you who wants others to back it up. Why can't you? The last 3 repliers like most of who resemble to them in way of thinking, speaking and acting throw muddy lines and know how to use the word "fuck" since it is a very popular, needless to say highly intelligent word in America. Hey, I am from Europe and this word is not very symbiotic with my vocabulary. Though, the point is, can you first back up your arguments by giving up the idiotic attitude/foul language or is this something you can not renounce at all costs? If that is the case, then sorry, i am unwilling to back it up because whethere I do or don't it will not make any difference to you. By the way, i have read this web site for quite some months now and I am not so sure that you see the point I try to make.
"Quixtar's a scam because we said so."
Because "we said so"? Hey can so also. What an idiotic argument because so is the context under which you make it. You aren't bussines owners or were, you were more like jokers and excuse makers.
I actually read the comments before I clicked on the link! Nice...
star traveller, obviously you haven't read the blog or the forum for long enough because we have been proving for a few years now that Quixtar is a poor business opportunity and a scam. and everytime we ask anyone to just show some hard physical evidence to prove the Quixtar is good we get the run around. but anytime anyone here makes a claim they are expected to back that claim up with some proof. if there isn't any then the claim is as usless as me saying I'm Brad Pitt and own a Ferrari. if you say Quixtar is the #2 online retailer ahead of sites like Amazon.com, and WalMart.com etc... I call a flag on the play unless you can show me something to support it.
Regarding the position of Quixtar's rating,
I did a search online for top internet retailers. I was not able to find any with any reference to Quixtar. Here is the most recent one I found, dated today:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=9613
And here is the link which that site got its info: Perhaps you have heard of Nielson Net Ratings:
http://www.netratings.com/pr/pr_051128.pdf
Of course, according to Quixtar, they were listed as number 14 in a top 400 list:
http://www.quixtarnewsroom.com/quixtar_in_the_news.html
A previous year, Quixtar was number 12 (so they lost two places in a few years).
Amquix has some info about them being number 7 at some point:
http://www.amquix.info/quixtar_km110100.html
If you read ThisBizNow, you will find Quixtar listed in the following ranks:
14
19
12
7
6
1 in Health and Beauty (this is not 1 overall, just this catagory)
Reference:
http://www.thisbiznow.com/quixtar/media.html
Now, who is not supporting their view with facts?
Thanks,
X
StarTraveller,
I'm not sure where you're seeing the foul language. Tony used to use a lot of it, he is a Pro-Q person and currently banned from posting. There are a handful of critics who do too, but I haven't seen them in a while either. My experience with people here (critics and pros alike) has been very good, and most express themselves in a decent manner.
There is plenty of backup provided on this site, the forum of this site and www.amquix.info. Not to mention all the experiences by former IBO's, including myself. I found all backup I needed to expose the truth about Am/Q to myself and my husband. We had been actively involved for 11 years, but when we discovered the lies, we could no longer associate ourselves with this business.
Great picture, Q-blog! Hilarious!
Star Traveller and Surprised,
The critics aren't the ones making income claims and saying what a great opportunity quixtar is. The people who make such claims are the ones who have failed to back up any claims. If you go to the forum section of this website, there's plenty of proof and math based examples that prove that quixtar doesn't work for the vast majority of people. Are we saying that one one makes money? Of course not but for every one person who makes a fortune, there are many who don't. Or a kingdom can have only one king, a few princes, etc and the peasants are the ones who suppport the kingdom, much like quixtar.
Oh and if you post comments respecably, that's how you will be treated. There are some pro-quixtar posters here who are treated with respect and they respect anti-quixtar posters.
Can someone give me the basic stats on the IBO. I heard that only 1 in 14,000 makes it to diamone (million dollar level) and that the average IBO only makes $155/month. Something like that.
Is there a bullet point version somewhere here on the web. It would be helpful.
Thanks.
fu,
This is a corporation website. Look in the box for this quote:
"The following are approximate percentages of Direct Fulfillment IBOs of record in North America who achieved the illustrated levels of success in the calendar year ending December 31, 2004: Diamond .0176%; Emerald .0420%; Q-12 Platinum .2440%."
Also of interest:
"More than 380,300 Independent Business Owners received a bonus in FY 04."
"The average bonus and cash payments earned by a Diamond IBO in 2004 were $175,116."
"The Average Monthly Gross Income for “Active” IBOs was $115"
http://www.thisbiznow.com/quixtar/ibo_statistics.html
Hope this helps, it is about the best source because it comes straight from the corporation.
It's funny how an innocent picture can ignite IBOs :) Priceless!
here's proof
http://www.internetretailer.com/dailynews.asp?id=16645
I went to the URL that DC referred to. Here's the first paragraph of the article:
"Quixtar Inc. is reporting essentially flat web sales for its 2005 fiscal year. In 2005, the web generated sales of $753 million, up less than 1% from sales of $748 million in fiscal 2004, the company says."
I'm too busy to do the leg work myself, but does anybody know how a volume of $750 million would compare to Amazon, E-Bay, and some of the other web sites? StarTraveller's first post claimed the E-Bay was #1 and Quixtar was #2. What say we put this to the test?
I'm with Scott N.
I care not to jump through all the hoops to see the whole list, but newegg.com is #9. What the hell is newegg.com (I know what it is now, but never heard of it before today), and what does that say about #14?
Plus, heavy hitter Amazon.com...have they pulled a profit yet?
Toss around #1 and #2 all you want...just make sure it's not a special olympics race.
Amazon started showing profits back in fiscal '02. They have been consistently profitable ever since.
Scott N wrote,
I'm too busy to do the leg work myself, but does anybody know how a volume of $750 million would compare to Amazon, E-Bay, and some of the other web sites? StarTraveller's first post claimed the E-Bay was #1 and Quixtar was #2. What say we put this to the test?
Amazon had revenues of $6.92 billion for fiscal '04. Ebay had revenues of $3.27 billion.
There's not much leg work involved. Look up public companies with Yahoo Finance and the click on the "income statement" link under the "Financials" category in the left margin.
Getting the sales totals are cool, but Ebay and Amazon sales are primarily to customers while quixtar sales are primarily self consumption by IBO's. Big difference.
Great point, Joecool18! Quixtar doesn't even belong on that list: they are not a retailer, remember? In fact, wasn't the retail requirement just removed recently from the IBO rules? So comparing them to Amazon or eBay is like apples and oranges.
I just went back to the URL that DC cited earlier. Here's the URL and another quote from the article:
http://www.internetretailer.com/dailynews.asp?id=16645
"After several years of growth, Quixtar, No. 14 in the Internet Retailer Top 400 Guide to Retail Web Sites, had been anticipating a leveling off in its web sales as it added new independent business owners and expanded its product inventory."
There's a hyperlink to the Top 400 Guide, however this takes you to an ad where you can purchase the guide for $49 + shipping. Oh well, it looks like A/Q is #14 as opposed to Star Traveller's claim of being #2
Hey Star Traveller,
Don't you hate it when the facts get in the way of your emotion based argument?
The only real facts you have are the statements you've heard from your upline.
My favorite "fact" was the one about Bill Gates partnering up with Amway to create Quixtar. I actually laughed at that one and asked for the source. He said he had heard it from the horses mouth...our upline Diamond.
I would really love to see a thread on your favorite upline AmQuix-lore.
LOL
Hey, don't online sales only represent approximately 2% of all retail?
Even if these companies are the 'kings' of online retailing, they are kings of a very small kingdom.
Thanks for the information and links.
Star Traveler: You made the assertion "Have you ever heard that eBay is the #1 online4 seller and that Quixtar is #2?" An assertion without any citation, and when a couple of people politely asked you to cite your assertion you retaliate with "My first question to you all is, why don't you back it up? It is you who wants others to back it up." Hum. You made the statement, not the questioners, therefore it is YOUR responsibilty to stand behind YOUR words. It's not anyone's responsibilty to support your argument but yours. Can you stand up for what you believe? Can you back it with convincing facts?
PorkChopJim,
Newegg.com is very well known among computer people who enjoy building comps from scratch, as it is a very good place (I hear) for purchasing individual components. On that basis, it is something that there is a subset of people know about and use regularly, but they don't market very important items, so you never hear about it unless you are looking to build a comp from scratch.
With a little Google, I see that Amazon had its first fully profitable year in 2003. Started in 1994. If they'd only had a proven, 2-5 year plan, they should have been free in 1999 - the year the internet exploded with the most exciting business opportunity EVER...
Regardless, newegg.com - which as stated primarily caters to do it yourselfer computer nerds (a niche that needed filling, obviously) through selection and pricing, is #9 vs. #14. Are there more do it yourself computer nerds than there are business owners executing a proven money making opportunity? Are computer nerds doing their 100pv per month? Can I get toothpaste and toilet paper from newegg? Maybe they should look into that. If only we could get neweggers to buy from themselves and teach others to do the same...because THAT looks like the better market to exploit.
Point being: I'm having a hard time getting excited about #14 ranking (#2 health and beauty - I'll take your word for it). Obviously, I don't see the 'big picture', or at least the 'dream.'
Here are the most recent e-business stats from the US Census. http://www.census.gov/mrts/www/data/html/05Q3.html E-business the last quarter did only 2.2% of all retail, or 2.4% when adjusted for inflation. Somewhere around 2.3% of all total US retail is a huge niche, but it is a niche nonetheless.
I would be curious to see if there were statistics on how much business, percentage wise, traditional catalogs did without the use of the internet (old fashioned ordering like through snail mail or telephone). I believe the e-statistics in the url above include e-business done by people who get paper catalogs and then go online to order. My point is, traditionally, catalog orders (non internet) only ever garnered about 3% of the total retail market before the www and I wonder how much of the 2.2% of the market e-commerce has comes from former traditional catalogs?
wow....you warned me alright....
OK, here is a thought related to this:
If a scientist says there are billions of stars in the night sky you believe them, but if someone says the paint is wet, you have to touch it to be sure....
X
Posted by: xanadustc | November 30, 2005 4:31 PM