Yes, I know we are all independent distributors, and run our own businesses. That, in fact, is the main reason many of us are doing this. Two facts about our industry have started to change the way I approach it, however, and I think they bear watching.
First of all, perhaps the most frustrating aspect of network marketing is the high turnover rate. This not only increases our workload as sponsors, making it necessary to spend inordinate amounts of time recruiting as opposed to training and marketing, but it is a major cause of the negative image this industry has. I have seen several excellent articles and systems for retaining people, and I assume these methods are working. The turnover rate remains high, however, and recruiting replacements continues to be a major part of our work. A turnover rate of zero might be unrealistic, but certainly one of less than 50% isn't out of the question.
The more valid reasons for the high turnover appear to be lack of training and attention by upline sponsors, and the new distributor not seeing any return (or not enough return) on investment. Some of the root causes suggested for this are misleading prospects with visions of great wealth, or such a focus on recruiting that training and support are ignored. While these make sense and are very likely the causes, I haven't really seen a definitive study on this. From my own experience, however, they do seem to fit the bill. In my past involvement with a major MLM company, the only real support I got from my sponsor was periodic pep talks. I don't know about you, but I need a coach as well as a cheerleader! Many of us are lousy salesmen and marketers, and while encouragement is good and needed, hard core training and support are absolute necessities as well. What to do?
The other thing I have noticed is the relatively recent phenomenon of Cooperatives, or "CO-OPs". They aren't new by any means, but they seem to be popping up at an ever increasing rate. What I mean by a CO-OP is a system within a company where one sponsor assumes leadership in a very real sense, and designs his or her own system for training and support that specifically addresses the needs of the business. Advertising, sponsoring, organization, training... all of the areas in which some of us are admittedly lacking in expertise. Jeffery Lant's organization comes to mind, as well as Linda Bruton's SuperBooster program. I think Bill Britt's Amway organization was a kind of proto-CO-OP several years ago when it began to improve the production and distribution of sales aids and tapes.
John Naisbitt coined an interesting term in his book "Re-Inventing the Corporation", and has repeated it in his new book "The Global Paradox", that I think applies to cooperatives in multi level marketing. He calls it the "virtual corporation." Naisbitt describes it as a cooperative collection of entrepreneurial units, rather than the current collection of employees within a single enterprise. We still seem to like the term "CO-OP", but virtual corporation may be more accurate.
There are many of these CO-OPs now, large and small, and their appearance is exciting. This business is not just for the high energy genius types who can do it all themselves, but it is for the rest of us mere mortals. It is for single parents and displaced workers and families that want to have a meal all together occasionally. It is for people like me, who are "organizationally challenged" but excited and driven by new ideas. It is also for all of those people who drop out.
I believe that the second fact, the emergence of cooperative MLMs, will be a major solution of the first fact, the high turnover rate. Let me carefully relate my own experience.
In my first involvement with MLM, I broke even. I sponsored five people, and sold enough soap to cover my expenses. I met my real objective and got out, but if I had been making a significant profit I'd have probably stayed in. I try to learn from everything, and I remembered the problems I had with that experience while I was looking for another MLM. 8 years later, after a lot of looking I hopped back in with another company. I did it because I knew and trusted my sponsor. This was new and different, because I didn't even know my sponsor the first time. I told him that my time was a problem, I didn't have a lot of risk money, and I wasn't confident of my ability to sell... and I was certain that I didn't like selling... I lack the "killer instinct" to go for the close. What I did have was strong creative ability, good computer skills, teaching and leadership experience, and tenacity. Those are handy attributes, but not enough to do it by myself. On my own, I had to force myself to do things I didn't like and had no natural inclination for: Organization, follow-up, record keeping, and the killer close instinct, for example. I can do these things when I must, but it's not my idea of a good time.
The strengths I did bring to the organization were useful, though, so we worked out a deal. He would place the advertising, provide the 800 number and voice mail, do the initial mail out and phone follow up, and keep all the records. I provided a share of the advertising money, the second mail out, and sporadic phone follow up. I'm also doing some local advertising at my own expense, but giving his name and phone number. What I get out of the deal is his system, his credibility (it's real nice to be able to put "CPA" in the ad!) his expertise, and a share of the respondents that sign up. We decided how to divide up the new people, the fast start bonuses, and the workload, and started the thing. More people have become involved, and a duplicatable system has been developed.
I write this not only to toot my own horn, although I have to admit that IS fun. Mainly it is to point out that I might have been able to do this on my own, but I didn't, and probably wouldn't have. My sponsor certainly could have, but he didn't either. It happened through cooperation and the use of our individual strengths. The others who have joined us brought new skills. One of them has signed on BECAUSE we have a system, and not just a company. I can tell you that because of my "day job" which I love, my hours are absolutely screwy. I am unable to commit specific amounts of time to anything else and continue to do what I'm doing. I'm not ready to drop it, either. A CO-OP, which is what this has become, allows me to contribute what I am able to contribute, and to be compensated appropriately. Actually, I suspect that all successful MLM organizations are at least informal CO-OPs already.
Taking advantage of this isn't really very difficult, either. It has been said that a first rate leader surrounds himself with first rate people... a second rate leader surrounds himself with third rate people. Find the strengths in your downline and put them to work. Examine your own strengths and weaknesses, and if you find that you need help, get it. The group I am in and helped organize does not bear my name, or even use my address. That doesn't make me an employee or put me in some kind of a subservient position. The sponsor / distributor relationship is not master / servant. One of the best things about MLM is the serendipitous combination of people involved in true networking. The sum is greater than the total of it's parts.
A CO-OP is not for everyone, to be sure. There will always be "soloists" who can balance on the mountaintop, and there is nothing wrong with that. There will always be "geniuses" who are either legitimately geniuses or just darn lucky (what difference does it make which?), and there will always be turnover and failure in and out of CO-OPs. I think CO-OPs represent an evolutionary idea the time has come for, however.
NOTE: I don't intend these articles to be some kind of sermon on the mount. I would really like to hear opinions and discussion of these points. Since I am not a genius even by Oklahoma standards, nor particularly lucky, I have no more business spouting these things than any of you. These are opinions, and other perspectives will make us all smarter. Maybe even luckier!
Server space provided by Hurricane Electric