Have a seat, this one’s gonna be long.
Yesterday, I made a comparison of Anti-MLMers to pro-MLMers.
Here was my premise.
On the Internet, there are several websites and forums; and a dozen or so blogs, that have a negative slant toward MLMs and specifically Quixtar.
In that circle of sites, there are a few recurring names and “players” that have gained respect among the anti-MLM crowd.
I said, in effect, that these “players” were kind of like “Diamonds” or high-ranking MLMers. And new converts to the “Anti-MLM” crowd, used their sites and referral links to the sites like an MLMer would use a “tape of the week”.
Instead of a MLMer telling his “downline”, “go listen to this tape”… the anti-MLMer would say, “to answer that question, go to this link”
It was my observation that the anti-MLMer crowd was developing their own organization of “anti’s”, or IBOs in reverse.
Privately, I was contacted by someone, who thought my premise was “irresponsible”.
If I grasped anything he proceeded to tell me, this is what I came away with.
In any setting or group, two sides of a issue will develop. Comparisons can be made. A political internet group will form into Democrats and Republicans, as an example.
But if one side refers to the other as Communist or Fascist, then the discussion and sharing of ideas falters. Placing unfair labels on a group is wrong, or in the case of anti-MLMers, merely labeling them as a “group” or “organization” in and of itself is wrong.
So, I thought about what the person told me.
Here are my conclusions.
1) There are particular people and sites on the Internet with an agenda to bring down MLM as we know it, and Quixtar in particular.
2) These sites will attract disgruntled, frustrated, ex-MLMers.
3) These ex-MLMers might look at each other and gain respect from each other’s views.
4) These sites, by shear ranking on Search Engines will also attract people doing MLM research.
5)Discussions, both “pro” and “con” will take place, and certain decisions will be made.
BUT! (the inevitable “but”)
A pro-MLM company-specific organization has more cohesion, their efforts are united. There may be different techniques within the organization, but their aim and purpose is the same.
Such as the United States of America. Both Democrats and Republicans love their country. They may disagree on budget constraints, or the war effort, but their common goal is for “the good of the country.”
Those that described themselves as “anti-MLM” or even “anti-Quixtar” are more like the Confederate States of America, rather than IBO-wannabes-in-reverse.
They have a general “dislike”, or cause; but like the CSA, they are more like individual states fighting. Each state in the Confederacy, had particular concerns, printed their own money, worked on individual trade agreements. They were not all “united” in the ultimate “cause”.
That, ultimately led to their downfall.
These critical websites and those that frequent them, also stand little to gain in the downfall of MLM. Possible personal satisfaction may be their only reward. This excludes those sites, that may criticize a specific MLM company, because they favor another company for their own financial gain.
However, my “financial gain” may be affected by what an “anti-site” may make a “prospect” decide. That colored how I felt towards these sites, and why I grouped them together. I think I realize now, that any decision made at these sites by someone, without them having a conversation with me or a reputable IBO, is a “battle” I would not have won anyway, nor even “fought” in.
So, I won’t lump all “anti-MLMers” into one group anymore. I, myself, generally dislike it, when someone says, “all IBOs are alike”.
I constantly stand on my “soapbox” and preach the individuality of an IBO. I plead that people don’t assume something about my personality, because I chose MLM as a way to make some extra money.
So, I must continue to approach each “anti-MLMer” at their individual level. It would have been easier to lump them all together in one group. To have an “us” versus “them”. Maybe some of them do have that “mindset”, but not all.