Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Everything an MLM? (2019)

annehelen.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: Is Everything an MLM? (2019)

#71

Post by kube-system »

idontpost wrote: post #64
kube-system wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plain concept of the specialization of labor demonstrates that this is false, at least as a blanket statement. Sales is a skill. Making products is a skill. The people who have these skills is not always the same person or organization. Information or power asymmetry is the problem. Sometimes it’s the other way around. E.g. a large retailer selling a small company’s products.

If you cherry pick half the comment to respond to, then you get an irrelevant response like this. That first sentence was important context for the second.

I’m directly addressing it. If I wasn’t clear: there are, for example, large companies that buy leads or exclusive product rights from small players and have an asymmetric power over them.

Re: Is Everything an MLM? (2019)

#72

Post by JumpCrisscross »

antisthenes wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was as good as they say, they'd be doing it themselves not pitching it to you Counterfactual: franchises.

Franchises offload the risk on the franchisee and collect their percentage fee regardless of the performance. There was a segment on John Oliver's program about Subway being particularly predatory about this, as well as deliberately maintaining information asymmetry to mislead franchisees. In which sense do you think franchises are counterfactual here?

> In which sense do you think franchises are counterfactual here?

Plenty of franchises have sustainably made money for the franchiser and the bulk of their franchisees. That stands in stark relief to the history of MLMs.

Re: Is Everything an MLM? (2019)

#73

Post by anm89 »

I spent some time doing the "digital nomad" thing in Bali. The joke amongst my friend was the circular digital nomad economy.

Programmers / designers pay yoga teachers for yoga.

Yoga teachers pay the drop shippers to learn drop shipping.

The drop shippers are all paying crypto gurus to learn crypto trading

And the crypto gurus are all in bootcamps to become programmers.

And everyone is simultaneously trying to become a yoga teacher.

It's a big circle of everyone trying to make money by selling a way to continue to be a nomad to other people who are already nomads but are running out of money by claiming that their thing is the stable way (which it isn't because they need to pyramid scheme it to get by).

edit: forgot to throw in, there is a lot of "life coaching" going on in all of this

Re: Is Everything an MLM? (2019)

#75

Post by bri3d »

hattmall wrote: post #52
selecsosi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't find the original article I read but here is some more info on the relationship the program maintains with "owners" >The materials touted that he could make more than $75,000 and perhaps as much as $300,000 every year. The application required that you have $10,000 in startup capital, but the ad he saw also said that the fee might be waived for veterans. >Aside from Ramos, all of the business owners and drivers…

Same model as FedEx ground.

FedEx ground is about as different as can be with the same "model" ("model" meaning "contracted firm does deliveries"). With FedEx P&D, routes are negotiated on a route by route basis, and are owned. As long as you own the route and meet the minimum requirements, you keep that route. You can sell it to another vendor, or buy more routes.

The contractor manages the delivery schedule and logistics. The contractor purchases their own vehicles rather than leasing them from FedEx. They're paid per route and per package rather than based on a ratings model.

Furthermore, FedEx pay for brand placement on vehicles and for branded uniforms.

This is a much more equitable system: both FedEx and the contractor have skin in the game. The contractor company aren't vassals to the corporation: they own their trucks and can sell their routes and contract to another business if they'd like.

Re: Is Everything an MLM? (2019)

#76

Post by [deleted] »

antisthenes wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was as good as they say, they'd be doing it themselves not pitching it to you Counterfactual: franchises.

Franchises offload the risk on the franchisee and collect their percentage fee regardless of the performance. There was a segment on John Oliver's program about Subway being particularly predatory about this, as well as deliberately maintaining information asymmetry to mislead franchisees. In which sense do you think franchises are counterfactual here?

[deleted]

Re: Is Everything an MLM? (2019)

#77

Post by sky-kedge0749 »

guerrilla wrote: post #51
sky-kedge0749 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not GP, but here's an answer to your question in the form of a jigsaw puzzle: https://www.etsy.com/listing/739198964/crimethinc-pyramid-of...

That's equivocation between a pyramid as hierarchy and a pyramid as a specific business model. As far as I know, capitalism doesn't require constant recruitment because growth can be achieved in other ways like reducing product quality, reducing wages, deteriorating working conditions, increasing technological efficiency, enclosing commons, privatizing public goods and services, etc.

Capitalism usually means a small owning class and a large working class, which is the hierarchy. It doesn't actually require a pyramid scheme system of recruitment, you could just have an enforcer class that beats the workers into hopeless submission and consumption. The way it works now though is that workers at every level are led to believe they can rise up the pyramid. This is a good complement to the raw violence which is still there: this belief reduces enforcement costs, encourages consumption, and allows for some necessary meritocratic elevation to the educated technical/bureaucratic class.

Re: Is Everything an MLM? (2019)

#78

Post by jacquesc »

mbesto wrote: post #65
superb-owl wrote: post #7

There's definitely a trend where large corporations/institutions push risk and liability down onto individuals, who have a hard time quantifying it properly. They make promises about "independence" and "entrepreneurship" and "building wealth", but they're really just taking advantage of an information asymmetry, tricking uninformed individuals into accepting a deal that is much worse than they think. See: Uber, Subwa…

> See: Uber, Subway franchises, academia, Amazon truck drivers, or any of your classic MLMs These are weird comparisons. In some cases, the individual is the sales function, in some cases its the supply function, in other cases its a full blown SBU. I don't think you can bucket all of these into MLM, because, well, some of them have nothing to do with marketing (ya know, the M part of MLM).

Agreed. I don't know how one could classify any of those as "Multi Level" either.

If it were MLM, your local neighborhood Subway would by trying to sell you a franchise (instead of a sandwich)

Re: Is Everything an MLM? (2019)

#79

Post by ocdtrekkie »

antisthenes wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was as good as they say, they'd be doing it themselves not pitching it to you Counterfactual: franchises.

Franchises offload the risk on the franchisee and collect their percentage fee regardless of the performance. There was a segment on John Oliver's program about Subway being particularly predatory about this, as well as deliberately maintaining information asymmetry to mislead franchisees. In which sense do you think franchises are counterfactual here?

Similarly, McDonald's is now, in fact, largely a real estate company: All of the franchises have to pay them rent, and it's the largest portion of their revenue.

Re: Is Everything an MLM? (2019)

#80

Post by bombcar »

RicoElectrico wrote: post #27
superb-owl wrote: post #7

There's definitely a trend where large corporations/institutions push risk and liability down onto individuals, who have a hard time quantifying it properly. They make promises about "independence" and "entrepreneurship" and "building wealth", but they're really just taking advantage of an information asymmetry, tricking uninformed individuals into accepting a deal that is much worse than they think. See: Uber, Subwa…

Yeah, I just don't understand how franchises are able to get away with their shitty tactics, at least in the EU. They do not provide any net value to the society, all they do is shift the risk onto the franchisee with a pretty much unilateral contract. You have to engage in whatever shit they come up with, like buying expensive equipment. (McDonald's pizza anyone?) The only instances where a franchise makes sense is…

I know of one franchisee that actually did walk away from a pizza franchise to their own when the franchise changed their sauce.

He’s still doing well but it wasn’t a dominos kinda thing.

Post reply on HN