Network Marketing – Succeeding in a Do Not Call Society

You are constantly being bombarded with advertising. Each and everyday you will see, hear, and be subjected to thousands of advertisements. There are so many of them that they all start to blend in to our daily routine. There are TV commercials, radio ads, ads in magazines and new papers, advertisements online, and the list goes on. It has gotten so bad that people have started to create a wall around themselves to keep these ads out. We now have popup blockers, spam filters, do not call lists, and so on. All of these advertisements are becoming annoying, and we are trying our best to keep most of them away. None of us like being sold on anything. Why is it then that when most people start their brand new marketing business they fall into the trap of hounding their friends, family, and anyone within 3 feet of them to buy their product and/or join their downline? Is there a better way to go about it than by falling into the same trap in this Do Not Call society of ours?

No one likes to be sold to. You don’t like it, I don’t like it, and neither do your prospects. The cold prospecting techniques of old are basically dead in this new society we find ourselves in. Instead of using the old school methods of hounding your friends, family, and anyone within 3 feet, you must instead learn to be invited into your prospects world as a guest instead of a pest. So, there are basically two options to build your network marketing business. You can either pester your friends and family or learn to be invited as a guest into your prospects world.

These are the two ways that most network marketers target new prospects: you can play the numbers game and contact enough people until you get a sale, or you can position yourself as an expert and a leader and have prospects contact you to learn more about your products and opportunity. You do this by not selling people on your product or opportunity, but by selling the one thing that only you have and that is you. You are the reason why your prospects will by your product or join your downline. That is why it is so important to develop your unique selling proposition or USP. What is it that makes you different from everyone else in your business or network marketing in general. If you take a look at the president of your company, or the leaders in your company they have something that makes them attractive other people. Whether it’s money, success, or leadership, people will want to follow them. This is not because they want to be a network marketing distributer but because they believe that person can help them become financially independent, successful, and achieve their goals.

To start adding members to your downline you must provide value in the eyes of your prospects. All to often we think that our company is the value we provide. If that were the case why would someone join your downline over anyone else in your company? Instead, the value that you provide them is you. So you must increase your value in the eyes of your prospect. The best way to do this is to increase your knowledge. Learn the techniques that will build a large business from those who have already done it. Learn marketing techniques, prospecting techniques, and personal development. These are things that you can then bring to the table that will separate you from someone else in your company and the network marketing industry. Always look to increase your value to the marketplace and your prospects and wealth will follow.

Remember that no one who ever bought a drill wanted a drill, they wanted a hole. In a similar manner no one who has become a network marketer had a dream of becoming a network marketer, they had a dream of becoming financially free and have a means to live their dreams. So, instead of using the old brute force, cold prospecting techniques of the past, increase your value to your prospects, and position yourself in a manner that you are invited into their world. This way you will be invited into your prospects work as a leader and an expert and add people to your downline without ever having to sell your opportunity.

Are Online Social Networks Dummying Down Human Societies World Wide?

There is a famous saying that says; stupid people talk about people, smart people talk about events, and brilliant people mostly talk about concepts. Now then, I ask do you see the problem with social networks online?

Whatever you think about, you become, but if you are worried about what other people think of you, and you believe that your opinion of what you think about other people is important, then chances are you will spend a deal of your time thinking about those things – tweeting, typing, and talking about; PEOPLE, which predicts the old famous quote is what stupid people do with their time. Ouch – tell me it isn’t so! Afraid it is.

If you are involved in social online networks, well that’s kind of what they do there – talk about people mostly. And so I asked you; are online social networks dummy down human societies? They appear to be here the United States, and yet I would submit to you this is happening everywhere. People are more concerned with tweeting or texting their friends, and talking about the latest YouTube video, then they are about thinking about new concepts, innovations, and such.

At some point people have to consider these socializing networks online such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and others as irrelevant, and they need to move their brain to a higher level. With all this distraction going on, it’s amazing that anyone even realizes there is more to life than news, weather, sports, and Facebook. Suddenly, the TV is out, and social online networks are in – and that’s just great but I don’t think anyone moved up in the world by switching, I don’t even think they moved straight across, indeed, I would submit to you that they’ve dumbed down.

Now then, there are some social Internet networks which talk about concepts, or they are specially made for industry and business. I would not be criticizing those because they use collaboration and discuss things which are relevant to ones career and future, and more often than not discuss innovation. Generally they are talking about concepts, and yes events. Therefore those would be the brilliant or smart people. And it’s not that I want to chastise the Xers, or all the people playing around on these socializing networks, after all, to each his own, it is a free country.

However, perhaps we should stop and think about what it’s doing to our society, and how these changes are not helping where we need to go in the future, or where we need be. There is a big controversy, about whether or not Google is making us stupid, suffice it to say Google doesn’t appear to be the problem anymore, rather, I’d be more concerned with the social Internet networks, that everyone belongs to, so, Please consider all this

Amway, MLM Or Network Marketing and the Paradigm Shift to Modest Clothing

There is a large movement within the Christian community toward modest clothing. The hope of most in this movement is to effect the rest of society to begin dressing modestly. The practice of the business community and Amway, MLM or network marketing may indicate that this goal is achievable.

If you only consider the advertising policies of major corporations you would be inclined to wave the white flag of surrender in this effort to effect society toward modesty. Of course the advertisers are acting on research that indicates they can sell more product by including a scantily clad woman in their add (for more information on this phenomena see Melissa Duriga’s article “Visual Science and the Feminine Masterpiece”).

You must understand that although the big corporations receive most of the press it is small business that fuels the American economy. It is estimated that about 70% of all jobs in America are provided by small business. There is no question that the media images produced by big business can transform society. Because of their numbers does it not make sense that the practices of small businesses can reform society as well?

Amway or MLM is certainly not a majority of small business in this country but network marketing constitutes a significant portion of small businesses. As the leader in the industry most direct selling companies emulate some of what Amway has done to achieve their success. One of the principles that Amway has lived by for many years, and has been incorporated by many other network marketing companies is “Dress For Success”.

If you will pick up a copy of the “Dress For Success” books you will find that a major component of the dress for success strategy is conservative, or in other words, modest, dress. “Dress For Success For Women” will counsel to not wear short skirts or dresses and to not wear tight fitting clothing. If you were to attend an Amway convention or even one the local distributor business meetings you will find a room full of well dressed men and women, and the dresses will be much more conservative than what you will find in your typical department store. These women seem to make an extra effort to find the most modest clothing for business purposes. Or it may be that they only own one modest dress, but that is the dress that they wear when attending an Amway function.

Do these women dress modestly because they are so much more virtuous than the rest of American society? Although virtue is a principle that is taught by the leadership in Amway, that is not how they sell the idea of dressing modestly to new recruits. When they are setting up the first meetings for new recruits they tell them that if they will dress conservatively (read modestly) they will relate to the largest number of prospects.

Imagine that. Immodest dress turns people off when relating personally in a business relationship. Maintain hope. We can reform society for modest dress if we simply persevere.

Social Structure And Network (A Mathematical Model For Social Behaviour)

Analogy and metaphor are often used by social scientists to explain a social phenomenon because certain social concepts are otherwise very difficult to comprehend. For example, a physical structure like ‘building’ or a biological structure like ‘organism’ is compared to define the concept ‘social structure’. Actually, social structure is not a physical structure. An abstract concept which can’t be seen is explained in a simplified way by using an analogy which can be seen easily by everyone. Physical scientists use a model to test the predictions. If the predictions are correct when the model is tested every time then the model constructed is perfect. Otherwise, the model is suitably modified and then the predictions are tested again. This process is continued until the model becomes perfect. Do we have a grand model of social structure that can be used to test social predictions? In this article, an attempt is made to understand how far network theory is useful in explaining social structure and whether social predictions can be made using the network.

Radcliffe-Brown was one of the earliest to recognise that the analysis of social structure would ultimately take a mathematical form. Radcliffe-Brown defines social structure as a ‘set of actually existing relations at a given moment of time, which link together certain human beings’. According to Oxford dictionary, ‘relations’ means the way in which two persons, groups, or countries behave towards each other or deal with each other. The phrase, ‘link together certain human beings’ can be compared with a ‘net work’ of connections.

Network is defined as a closely connected group of people who exchange information. Each point (person or agent) in the network is called a ‘node’ and the link between two nodes is connected by a line called an ‘edge’. When two nodes have a direct social relation then they are connected with an edge. So when a node is connected with all possible nodes with which the node has social relations, it produces a graph. The resulting graph is a social network. The number of edges in a network is given by a formula nc2, where ‘n’ is the number of nodes. For example, if there are 3 people in a party then the number of handshakes will be 3. If there are 4 people then the number of handshakes will be 6. If there are 5 people then it will be 10. If there are 10 people then the number of handshakes will be 45. If there are 1000 people then the number of handshakes will be 499,500. When the number of people has increased 100 folds from 10 to 1000, the number of handshakes has increased 10,000 folds. So the number of relationships increases significantly as ‘n’ increases. The network theory was developed by the Hungarian mathematicians, Paul Erdos and Alfred Renyi, in the mid twentieth-century. Networks of nodes that can be in a state of 0 or 1 are called Boolean networks. It was invented by the mathematician George Boole. In Boolean networks, the 0 or 1 state of the nodes is determined by a set of rules.

If two nodes are connected then the network of the two nodes assumes four states (00, 01, 10, and 11). The number of states of network grows exponentially as the number of nodes increases which is obtained by a formula 2n, where ‘n’ is the number of nodes. When n is greater than 100, it is quite difficult to explore all the possible states of the network even for the world’s fastest computer. In a Boolean network we can fix the number of states as 0 and 1. In a Boolean network, if there are three nodes A, B, and C which are connected directly by edges then the state of C can be determined by fixing the states of A and B. It means the state of C depends upon the states of A and B in some combination. Further it implies that if we know the state of C then we will know the combinational behaviour of A and B. But in a social network of persons, we do not know how a person’s behaviour is deterministic. Further, in a Boolean network, the behaviour of the nodes can be studied in controlled experiments as nodes here are objects. But in a social network, nodes which are individual persons can’t be treated as objects. In a social network how do we define the states of a person? How many states does a person have? What is the nature of a state? If the expected behaviour of a person is reduced to two states like ‘yes’ or ‘no’, then the number of states of a network will be 2n. Out of this, only one state will show up at a given moment of time. How do we predict that one particular state?

Family is a micro network within the network. The family members are closely connected with each other. Most of the members are also connected to other networks external to the family. Interactions take place within the family among the members who also have interactions outside the family. So there are several edges proceed from one node of a family towards nodes within the family and nodes outside the family. The edges within a family show intimate relationship, whereas the edges connecting nodes outside the family do not necessarily show intimate relationship. This intimate relationship is a very important assumption that we have to consider so as to reduce the number of states of the social network. For example, the likelihood of a family member to conform to the family norms will be higher. Similarly, the likelihood of a person to side with a close friend will be higher. Also, the likelihood of a member of a particular group to conform to group norms will be higher. These assumptions are necessary to measure the probability of how the whole network behaves in a certain way.

Interaction takes place along the nodes. The connection of one node to the other is either direct or indirect. For example, a person’s friend is connected to the person directly; the person’s friend’s friend is connected to the person indirectly, separated by one friend or technically by one degree. Research (Stanley Milgram, 1967) shows that every person in the world is separated only by six degrees to any other person. This implies that every person is connected directly or indirectly with other persons in the network except for an isolated community whose members do not have any contact with outside world. The six degrees of separation is only an approximation. For example, if you know the targeted person then the degrees of separation is zero. If your friend knows the targeted person then the degrees of separation is one and so on. Milgram’s conclusion was if you have selected a person to be targeted at random, then the maximum degrees of separation would have been six. However, the number of degrees of separation depends upon the number of critical nodes in the network in question. We will discuss about critical nodes later. So, connectivity is more or less a social reality. The question is whether this connectivity can be used as a tool to study social phenomena? If the answer is affirmative, then where can we apply this tool?

If we analyse social structure in terms of a network system, then it may be useful to understand the nature of ‘dynamism’. The state of a system at the current moment is a function of the state of the system at the previous moment and some change between the two moments. Therefore, ‘a set of actually existing relations at a given moment’ depends upon the actually existed relations at the previous moment. It implies the importance of time interval, whatever the interval may be. That means if we want to know why a particular type of social structure prevails over a society at a given point in time, then we should necessarily bring ‘historical perspective’ to the study. Change is an important ingredient of dynamic system. A change at the micro level sometimes doesn’t affect the system. But, in other occasions the system becomes chaotic. It depends upon the nature of change in time and space. What is to be noted here is, a person’s behaviour is shaped by the person’s past experiences and the present situation.

Moreover, a person in a social network is connected to different smaller networks which are dispersed widely. After all, a social network is networks within networks. But we should note that the system behaves differently with respect to a particular behaviour of different persons; it depends upon who the person is and how the person is placed in the hierarchy of the network. The network landscape is not even; it contains persons with different status and position. A person moves vertically and horizontally as well as deletes and adds connections. This brings change frequently at the micro level of the network. A person who is in power can easily influence others to follow an idea which need not be correct and a person who is not in power may not be able to influence others though the idea may be correct and good for the society. An idea doesn’t arise in a vacuum; it comes from the mind of a person. Even if an idea is correct, sometimes our society takes a lot of time to accept it. For example, it took a lot of time for our people to accept the fact that the earth is revolving around the sun and not the other way.

In a social network, (1) each node is unique as two individuals can’t be treated as two similar objects; (2) a node may have a large number of edges connected to it directly or indirectly though it may not influence the behaviour of other nodes; (3) a node may not have a large number of edges connected to it directly or indirectly, yet it may influence the behaviour of other nodes in its network; (4) a node may have both larger connectivity and the power of influence over other nodes. So it is necessary that each node is to be studied and graded according to its connectivity and power of influence. Once this is done, we will be able to predict, to some extent, how a particular network would behave. A critical node is a node that has a larger connectivity as well as the power of influence. Why people took a lot of time to accept that the earth is revolving around the sun and not the other way: It was because the critical nodes might not have been immediately ready to accept the fact for certain reasons; secondly, each node is required to be connected with at least one critical node in order to get influenced quickly; finally, a node was in confusion because it might have been connected to two critical nodes which had opposite views.

Though network is a good analogy to explain the concept of social structure, it has certain limitations: (1) The states of a network increases exponentially as the number of nodes increases; (2) The number of states of each node and its dependency on other nodes can’t be fixed as it can be done in Boolean network; (3) The number of edges (social relationships) increases as the number of nodes increases by a formula nc2; (4) Edges do not have uniform relationship; (5) Each node is unique and continues to change; (6) Information of opposing values continues to flow in the edges on both directions.

Though the number of relationships increases significantly as the number of nodes increases in a social network, it does not increase the complexity of the network. Society has certain norms. People are expected to follow these norms. These norms regulate the behaviour of people. Social regulations tend to reduce the noise in the network.

Though the behaviour of a node in the social network is difficult to determine, we can measure it by applying the theory of probability. For example, a family may hold a particular value. As the family is a closely knit group, all the members are expected to hold the same value. If we attribute a colour to this particular value, then the nodes of the family network will have the same colour and will look distinct. When the information pertaining to this value flows out from the family network to other networks through the edges, the information will have this colour. Therefore, the other nodes which receive and value this information will be influenced by this colour. Similarly, the nodes of a family will also be influenced by other colours as different information flow into the family network. The colour of a node depends upon how strong the node holds a particular value. Suppose, a certain node is surrounded by several nodes of a distinct colour, then the probability that this particular node will have a strong influence of that particular colour is higher. This is what happens when a person joins a group; the person will be strongly influenced by the values of that group. And when this person interacts with other nodes, those group values are transmitted. Therefore, if we know (a) the network of a particular node, (b) the colour of other nodes in the network, and (c) the colours of the critical nodes in the network, then we will be able to determine the probable behaviour of the particular node by giving weighted measure to each node of the network according to its location, distance, and colour. Though the nodes in a social network are not objects, the nodes can be studied objectively in this manner with a probabilistic determination.

Suppose a node is a drug addict and living in the neighbourhood of other nodes who are drug users and sellers, then we have reasons to believe that the node’s addiction is due to its location and easy availability. But we can’t attribute the same reason to a node’s addiction to drugs if the node doesn’t live in the neighbourhood of drug users and sellers. The circumstances under which the two nodes have got addicted to drugs would be different. There may be many causes for a node to become a drug addict. However, network analysis with probabilistic determination will be useful to find out the significant cause. In the former case, the node should be treated leniently because the probability to become a drug addict is higher due to its location and easy availability. The node is prone to be a victim of circumstances. The circumstances could be due to retreatism, a concept developed by the sociologist Robert Merton (1968).

According to Merton, retreatism is a response to inability to succeed; it is the rejection of both cultural goals and means, so that, in effect, one drops out. The sale of illegal drugs itself is another kind of deviant behaviour which Merton defined as innovation. Innovation involves accepting the cultural goals but rejecting conventional means. This excessive deviance results from particular social arrangements. Whereas in the latter case, the node’s probability to get addicted to drugs is lower and the circumstances are not obvious. It could be a personal choice or the drug sellers’ spread to new locations. If it was a personal choice, then in addition to social arrangements, biological and psychological factors would also be considered to find the causes. In this case, the node’s deviant behaviour needs a different treatment.

The above example illustrates how a social phenomenon can be studied using a network analysis with probabilistic determination. The probability of a node’s behaviour will guide us to make social predictions such as how a particular neighbourhood will behave in a certain situation at a given moment of time. One problem which would arise in this model is how the nodes are coloured. Suitable research method is to be employed to arrive at the probable nature of a node. The probable nature of a node depends upon the probable nature of other nodes in the network. The researcher should proceed from the established and known nature of certain nodes. For example if a group’s values are overtly known to everyone then the group will be coloured accordingly. However, the researcher should note that if the nodes are wrongly coloured, the measures will be wrong and so our predictions.

Another problem is the dynamic nature of the system. The behaviour of a node is constantly changing. However, the change in a particular node does not bring about a change in the system immediately in most of the cases. The change in the system is felt only after reaching a tipping point. Social change does not take place every second. After all, a period of 1,000 years is just a blink of an eye in the biological evolutionary time scale. Hence, social predictions can be made at a given moment of time. A third problem is, there can be individual differences within a family or group. This fact is to be considered in the research method before colouring a node.

To sum up, we are living in this information society with lots of complex problems. This is not surprising because it is natural and an outcome of evolutionary process. Many problems do not have a single cause. Taking a decision looking at one cause of a complex problem will lead us to face another problem in different form. We will have to look at all causes simultaneously to see how the riddle unfolds itself. It implies there are many solutions for a complex problem. Probabilistic determination might give us the best possible solution.

Social Networking Benefits Charities

Social networking isn’t just for the young crowd. Charity and nonprofit organizations are now beginning to understand the power of social networking. That power is hard to ignore when recent surveys polled produced results that half the users on the formerly teen-popular MySpace are 35 years old and older. Add that to the number of viewers visiting Facebook and YouTube, and corporate boards are sitting up and taking notice.

The question is whether or not you and your organization are tapping into the potential and opportunities available through various methods of social networking. One such company has. Habitat for Humanity has long been known for their work helping communities throughout the United States. They are metro region-based, are charitable organizations, and they have joined the 21st century when it comes to social networking and media opportunities. In many locations around the country and in Canada, the charity uses Facebook for viral marketing programs to advertise their campaigns, their locations, as well as to generate information about attending various events that help finance their goals.

The well-known Humane Society has also seen the benefit of social networking. At last count, over 650 charities have profiles on Facebook. The ability to reach far and wide through the Internet enables donations not only from local residents, but also throughout the country and indeed the world. The Humane Society in the United States relies on social networking presence to help fund campaigns, generate information and to build their membership.

Recent studies have shown that nearly 50% of Internet users access one of at least a dozen well-known social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. Blogging is also essential in today’s Internet-based society, as it offers limitless opportunities for many different types of charitable organizations. Says Alan Rosenblatt, executive director of the Internet Advocacy Center, “Social networking platforms give nonprofits a forum for meeting like-minded organizations and potential supporters, and provide(s) a medium for spreading their message beyond the immediate community.”

Some of the most popular social networking websites include but are not limited to:

  • Flickr
  • Care2
  • Friendster
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Facebook

Social networking allows both individuals and groups to connect with each other through blogging, Internet messages, and website discussion and forum boards. One of the best things about such social networking websites is that they are free to join and most receive tens of thousands of visitors a day in both unique and return visitors, allowing charities and organizations to spread their message and disseminate information without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on old-fashioned mail campaigns. When searching for the right network for any organization or charity, intended audience is a general determining factor.

Social networking websites enable charities and organizations to increase visibility and raise both awareness and funding. Consistent blogging, regular updating of websites and information offers nonprofit organizations and charities the ability to connect with one, hundreds, or the hundreds of thousands of people at a time.