do excuse me, but i believe a study done at harvard shows that
on average ppl who do networking usually sponsor about 2.7 ppl on
average in their whole careers.
there are no guarantees in anything, regardless of stairstep,
unilevel, or binary plan. though i would think putting all my
people in 2 teams rather than 4 or more teams makes more sense,
no?
it is a distributor's responsibility to not only build his 2
teams with great thought, but also to develop his people. if he/she
does not have the brains to put builders on both teams then is the
flaw with the plan or with themselves?
and yes of course there is no guarantee your first 2 ppl will grow.
not now not ever. so if you can't grow 2 teams, do you think
growing 3,4 or more teams is going to be any easier?
again an inability to balance is not an inherent plan fault but
a distributor's fault
unlimited levels to draw commissions from. NOT unlimited income.
do you see the difference? ideally a binary plan with a reasonable
income cap coupled with ethical marketing strategies and good
products is a much better guarantee of income than stairsteps or
unilevels.
i don't do usana but their comp plan is one of the many i have
looked through. have you examined their comp plan without biased
and total honesty? do you know exactly what you are talking
about?
yes if it does then show us your evidence and all your facts. no
emotional arguments and flawed logic pls.
true enough companies that scam tend to use binary plans. so
should we blame the company or the plan?
tell me, would it be easier to manage 2 teams or 4,5,6
teams?
absolutely true my friend.
