The contention that there’s such a thing as a good MLM opens the door to a number of relevant questions:
Can you describe a theoretical MLM that doesn't rely on deception and predation to survive?
If you can, is what you've described actually an MLM? Or is it something else?
Can you name an existing MLM that doesn't rely to a great extent on deceptive and indirect methods of persuasion, logical fallacies and internal product sales?
How can any MLM counter the effects of uncontrolled exponential distributor propagation--rapid market and distributor over-saturation and early-stage downline overlap without mandatory internal sales?
Does an infinite market for any product or for distributorships exist in the real world?
Why has the MLM industry at large vigorously opposed legally-mandated distributor income disclosure unless those disclosures would invalidate industry-wide claims of entrepreneurial playing-field leveling distributor profit potential?
Why do MLMs and their recruiters disparage critical thinking—the only means by which an individual consumer can identify convoluted deceptions and logical fallacies—as “negativity”?
Why does MLM discourage or disparage vigorous inquiry—including true scientific investigation, as inapplicable to their “miraculous, life-changing” products?
Why does MLM so vigorously oppose FDA regulation . . . really?
Why are MLM compensation plans so complicated and difficult to understand?
How do they really sell their products at SRP when SRP so far exceeds their true retail value, as determined by their pricing in the open market—eBay and Craigslist, for example?
And, if they actually sell them at wholesale, to whom?
Shall I go on?
The industry, its trade association—the DSA—and MLM proponents disparage as biased, every published, truly research-based statistical analysis—analyses that invariably expose the futility of MLM business opportunities. Yet their only counter-arguments are based on strawman fallacies and red herrings; and they’re usually coupled with ad hominem attacks on the analysts they oppose. An unintentional misstatement, typo or syntax error doesn’t equate to dishonesty any more than anecdotal distributor success stories negate real statistics (Are you paying attention Mr. C? . . . BTW I’d be honored if you’d include me on your list of “anti-MLM zealots”. Please, do consider this post my application to be added to your list.).
The undeniable reality is that MLM’s structure is based on the fiction that an unlimited pool of prospective distributors exists; and MLM and their minions must convince every downline distributor that fiction is a truth. This, along with every other deceptive behavior they exhibit, is essential to launch and sustain any MLM.
Proponents point to the decades-long histories of some MLMs as evidence that the model is indeed sustainable. Those companies have sustained themselves by re-pyramiding with new product lines, entry into new geographical markets and the ever-present twenty-year generational turnover.
MLM presents a great opportunity for anyone willing to pursue the almighty dollar by starting an MLM or transferring their loyal downline organizations from a dying MLM to the latest and greatest in violation of their IBO agreements. But they make their money on the backs of innocent prey who buy into the illusory dream they sell. At what price wealth?
There’s such a thing as a good MLM? . . . I don’t think so; and that’s the only “opinion” I’ve expressed in this post.