USANA states this about their 2008 Average Earnings Chart: “The Average Earnings Chart is a great way to illustrate what a prospect can reasonably expect to earn in his or her USANA business.”

They also make this statement: “Developed in collaboration with the Independent Distributor Council, the chart shows the most current figures available (usually from the previous calendar year) and includes all earnings from the compensation plan, Leadership Bonus, and contests and incentives.”

So Rex, how is the 2008 Average Earnings Chart an illustration of what a prospective business associate can reasonably expect to earn when it only illustrates only 2% of all the distributors? How can USANA claim it is an “AVERAGE earnings chart” when it only counts 2% of associates in the earnings figures? How can USANA claim that the chart includes “ALL EARNINGS from the compensation plan, leadership bonus, and contests and incentives”????? Maybe USANA just has a problem with their choice of words, but the word “ALL” doesn’t mean a “FEW”. It means 100%…

And what about the fact that a few distributors who are at the top of the Pyramid Scheme were allowed to collaborate with USANA on developing the 2008 Average Earnings Chart? Those few select distributors were privy to insider information and were allowed to view the complete data. They purposely designed the earnings chart in such a way that deceives and misleads prospective associates.

If you believe a company like USANA doesn’t have a responsibility to be honest tell the truth regarding its distributor statistics, then you are no better than they are. At least do not call it an AVERAGE earnings chart. Call it something like: Upper 2% Earnings Chart. Tell the prospecting business associates that the earnings figures on the chart only represents 2% of all the distributors who join. Tell them that it only represents 7% of all the RANKED associates listed on the chart. Do NOT claim that the chart includes ALL of the distributor incentives when it doesn’t.

In Fact, just be honest for once.

My research proves different. If these people “don’t want to” make money, then why are they lured in with promises of financial freedom and big money for part time hours? That’s the focus of recruiting…. because that’s what most who join actually want.

When they fail (almost always a result of the pyramid structure) they’re portrayed as lazy people who didn’t try hard enough, or people who didn’t really want to make money anyway.

I’d love to see your tax returns to see what kind of “success” you’ve had! Probably minimum wage or less, unfortunately.

Some compensation plans are junk, and some are very good. Just like some brick and mortar companies pay better and have better benefits than others. I made a little money in MLM and could have made more had I worked harder. The people who I saw making the most money were the ones who worked the smartest and the hardest. There is no fraud here. These companies pay on the amount of products moved, and they pay well if you earn it.

MLM, or Network Marketing, is a legitimate business model just like a franchise is a business model. Sure, there are some junk companies out there, as there are in anything. But to frame an entire industry like you have done is akin to saying franchising is bad because someone lost money on a Subway store.

As for the earnings statistics please be fair. It would be grossly unfair to include in the earnings numbers those distributors who joined for a few dollars then did absolutely nothing to move product. If I am evaluating a business opportunity, I want the numbers based on the earnings of those who worked, for surely that is what one has to do to be successful in network marketing. Or academia. Or the military. Or in any business or career I can think of. So including active distributors would give a better evaluative picture. In fact, the average earnings for active distributors is probably much higher than stated.

You appear to be illogically biased against an entire industry which taints your credibility. My personal MLM experience, while not wildly successful, refutes your stated opinion.

Rex