Warning: Parameter 2 to wp_hide_post_Public::query_posts_join() expected to be a reference, value given in /srv/users/cini/apps/antipaper/public/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 298
DirectSellingNews.com: 2012 GLOBAL 100 List! | Antipaper's Digital Tsunami
Skip to content

DirectSellingNews.com: 2012 GLOBAL 100 List!

May 12, 2013
by The Technology Doctor

DSN 2012 GLOBAL 100
If you didn’t see the new 2012 DSN list, check it out at http://directsellingnews.com/index.php/view/2012_dsn_global_100_list.  If you’ve looked at the list in the last few years, you’ll notice some prominent companies are missing from the last two years’ lists, thanks to a long-awaited change to the list requirements:  companies have to provide PROOF of stated revenue numbers (imagine THAT!).  I’ll let the DSN officially explain:

In an effort to support transparency and verify authenticity, DSN implemented a new standard for the 2011 ranking, which we continued this year:  the Revenue Certification Form (RCF).  In addition to an updated profile, each company was asked to submit an RCF signed by the CEO and CFO or designated agent.  Some privately-held companies choose not to participate in the Global 100 process, and therefore do not appear on this list.

(They didn’t put that statement out with their 2011 list.)  You can see the list of companies playing hide-and-seek in the DSN’s “Detention Center” (my suggested name for the page), http://directsellingnews.com/index.php/view/dsn_global_100_the_top_direct_selling_companies_in_the_world/P8#.  The most prominent company on detention is Melaleuca, a company that in 2010 announced their revenue to be $948 Million, and in Feb. 2013 said they hit $1.13 billion (http://www.melaleucanews.com/melaleuca-announces-1-13-billion-in-sales-for-2012/)!  So a company with a BILLION in annual revenue won’t submit an RCF – why is that?  There’s only one reason:  they don’t want to admit their real numbers, and they don’t want to perjure themselves.  So off to detention they go!

MLM DEFINITION
While I’m on the Melaleuca company’s interesting accounting choices, let me also touch on their confusion about the “Multi-Level Marketing” terminology.  If you read the reference above where the $1.13 billion number is quoted, you’ll see the company’s CEO, Frank Vandersloot, continuing his annual tradition of saying, “I think our 27-year history of consistent growth proves that consumer-direct marketing is superior to multi-level.”  I appreciate Frank not wanting to jam people with inventory – that’s admirable. But the MLM term doesn’t apply to product distribution; it’s how we get paid:  if you’re in an MLM, you get paid on MULTI-LEVELS, as in multiple levels of distributors.  His analogy of “consumer-direct marketing” being “superior to multi-level” is akin to saying his truck uses 4-wheel drive in the snow, not air conditioning.  It’s two different topics, and all he’s doing is confusing an already conflicted topic.  The World Federation of Direct Selling Associations definition of MLM (http://www.wfdsa.org/about_dir_sell/index.cfm?fa=direct_sub2):  “An important component of the Direct Selling industry is multilevel marketing.  It is also referred to as network marketing, structure marketing or multilevel direct selling, and has proven over many years to be a highly successful and effective method of compensating direct sellers for the marketing and distribution of products and services directly to consumers.”  So if Melaleuca pays their reps on multi-levels of reps in a downline, then they’re an MLM, plain and simple.  Listen to well-known MLM Attorney Kevin Thompson explain why Melaleuca is definitely an MLM:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp03RQe_nhU.
JC

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *