Talk:Market America/Archives/2017

MLM or "Multi-Level Marketing" does not apply to the Market America platform and here is why...
While the Market America structure may look similar to that of an MLM at a glance, the functionality of the organization is different altogether. The relevance of this point is not in the structure of the organization, but in the functionality of the compensation plan.

Plainly put, a few hallmark qualities of a traditional MLM include the following mechanisms:

- Unlimited income potential for any single account - Descending levels upon which participants make lower and lower percentages until a level is reached beneath which all other levels do not pay the participant - Significant compensation is predicated on the building "wide" of each organization, which inherently causes competition and scarcity of prospects and volume among the participants on a given "team." - Due to the factors noted above, it is common for two activities to be practiced: a) "Price loading" on products by the corporate team to continue paying the "top" or "ground level" participants. This is a response to an economies of scale issue that is compounded by the competitive relationships set up within the organization. b) "Product loading" is a practice where participants will have to order large amounts of product in order to qualify for their paychecks and bonuses. Often, this product does not make it to the end consumer.

The following is MY experience with the MLM industry as well as with Market America. I encourage you to do your own research after considering my remarks.

Over a year ago, I was introduced to the Market America platform. Having previously spent some time working as a Rodan & Fields consultant, I was skeptical about the proposition. I have a SUNY degree in Business Administration and I have spent over ten years studying economics- both traditional and non-traditional.

Many years ago, I was agreeable to the MLM model because I liked the profit-sharing technique that is used in many organizations- not all of which are MLM's. There are many companies who offer compensation packages to their employees that include shares in the company. Additionally, any family owned and operated business employs a similar method of sharing profits, whereby the majority of compensation comes not directly from the wages of the workers, but from the overall equity and profitability of the business itself.

That being said, the profit margins for employees who have stock in their corporations tend to be low and can easily be manipulated as in the ENRON case. Family-owned businesses don't typically have this problem, but the opportunity for ownership is rarely offered outside the family.

My experience with Rodan & Fields was not atypical of the MLM industry. I participated in their program for less than a year before being unable to continue due to the financial obligations required to participate in their compensation plan. Moving forward from that experience, I retained my position that in theory, the profit sharing mechanism of MLM is a great way to decentralize wealth and economically empower "regular" people. That being said, the common criticisms of the MLM format remain obvious to me- even today.

So the question is, what makes Market America different from its contemporaries and predecessors?

The differences from most network marketing companies are not obvious at a glance, but upon a closer look I found that Market America is to an MLM what an iPhone is to a rotary phone. That is to say that they are only alike in a few minor functions.

Principally, there are three critical differences I found between Market America compensation plan and those of traditional MLM's.

1. In Market America, there is a cap on earning for any one business development center. This means that the person at the "top" cannot earn excessive amounts of money from their "downline" without reentering the organization with a second business development center in a way that benefits the aforementioned "downline."

2. The binomial structure dictates that all of the network is developed in a structure of only two teams. This means that all new participants in the program benefit EVERYONE above them. This also allows for 100% credit for all volume generated to be distributed throughout the organization without dilution and prevents competition between supposed teammates.

3. Finally, the most important difference between Market America and ANY other business format is the ability and encouragement of teamwork through profit sharing BETWEEN participants. That is to say that the person at the "top" can share their business volume with new participants who they have personally sponsored. Because of the non-dilution mechanism described in the previous point, the person at the "top" can share their volume with their entire team- enabling the "downline" to earn from participants both "below" AND "above" them.

I have reviewed compensation plans from traditional businesses as well as those from many prominent MLM's and have seen no evidence of these three unique attributes in their respective compensation plans.

For more information, I recommend you compare the compensation plans for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:700:8003:5BD0:7901:5072:71B8:6A0A (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly. There is no "bottom" and no real "top" in Market America.  Depending where you are you can always place your own personal volume under other people.  Then the people at the "top" have volume pass through people below them since everyone doesn't get paid on "levels" and volume is accrued infinitely up the chain.  But as mentioned. Once a center is maxed out it cannot earn more unless you open a new business under all the people who helped you.  This then helps the people below you by having volume flow up through their organizations all over again. CaribDigita (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Talk pages aren't the place for editors to share their personal experiences about a subject, they're for discussing material from reliable sources that can be included in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)