Why Mainstream Academia Will Never Accept Network Marketing
| Category: Networking(MLM) | Date: 2002-03-29 |
Okay, so we all know by now that network marketing was never actually taught at Harvard, or Yale, or Stanford, or (pick your rumored college or university). Will it ever be? There are some MLM authorities who would have you believe there are colleges and universities all over the nation preparing to ad, or are at least opening their mind to adding, MLM as an official part of their curriculum.
They haven't, and they won't.
Why not? The reason can be summed up in one simple, logical, oh so obvious answer: No college is ever going to educate their students as to how to earn a living at a profession that does not require a college education!
Think about it for a second (that's as long as it should take to make sense). Colleges and Universities exist on tuition fees, and various other profits derived from their student body. The men and women who run colleges and universities tend to be pretty bright people. They're not likely going to just decide one day "Hey, let's teach these kids how to earn a living without paying us $30,000 a semester!"
Network marketing is a "simple" business, right? Isn't that what we were all told when we first checked out MLM? It "levels the playing field," it allows the "average American to succeed in business," it provides an opportunity for "Sally Homemaker and Joe Toetruck" to be entrepreneurs. We just watch what our successful upline does and simply duplicate the process. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is, in fact, quite simple. So, if we can acquire all the knowledge we need to be successful in this business from a couple of "Big Al" books, and a few training calls from our upline (which is really all it might take), then why would anyone spend over $100,000 and four years of their life studying it? Even if MLM were only offered as a requisite class for a more standard Marketing degree (as opposed to their one day being a degree in MLM), it would still expose the concept, in a positive light, to the entire student body (not necessarily just those who take the class). And once the concept of MLM has been explained to the class itself, it's not that hard to imagine a room for of 19 year olds with little light bulbs above their heads with dollar signs swirling around them. I mean, imagine the kind of ad co-op you could put together with that 100 grand you're about to spend on tuition and books!
Even if, somehow, a few schools do ever offer MLM as part of their curriculum, it will only be for as long as it takes for the entire campus to be blanketed with "Lose 30 pounds in 30 days" fliers, the Dean's car windshield to crack from the weight of all the "Earn $10,000 in 90 days!" cards, and the first dozen restraining orders to be slapped on overly aggressive fellow students.
And I'm only slightly exaggerating.
More realistically, they're teach it until the first student succeeds at it and drops out.
The only way any school could actually avoid a potential loss of revenue, or perhaps even profit by offering classes in MLM, is if the institution itself were to endorse, promote and build a downline in a particular MLM company. It's conceivable they could eventually generate more income from overrides than from tuition fees. It also opens a Pandora's Box full of cans of worms. For example, can you even imagine the wheelin' an' dealin' that would go on behind close doors between MLM companies and campus administration?. In spite of how ridiculous this idea is, and the number of reasons why it would be a fiasco, I have no doubt that someday, somebody, somewhere, is going to try it.
There have been some recent, highly publicized developments related to this issue that would seem to suggest my theory is already proving false. After all, there is a "Certificate" course now being taught at the University of Chicago. A college level text book on direct selling now exists. Representatives from various educational institutions recently met at the University of Texas to discuss, among other things, the idea of embracing direct selling as a part of their curriculum.
First of all, network marketing is a subset of direct selling. It is quite possible to have a discussion about direct selling and not even mention MLM. Even if classes in direct selling emerge there's no guarantee that MLM will be more than a side bar. What's more, one very real possibility is that such a course, if one were to be developed, would focus primarily on starting and running an MLM company (which is the last thing this opportunity saturated industry needs), rather than attracting and educating more distributors (which this industry desperately needs). And just because a college level text book exists doesn't mean any college is ever going to use it. Currently, only the Utah Valley State College has adopted the text book, and only in preparation for an MLM course that may be offered later in the year. What's more, I strongly suspect this course will focus on developing MLM company employees, not distributors (it's no coincidence that the one college preparing to adopt this MLM textbook is right in the middle of the highest concentration of MLM corporate offices in the country). Finally, any laser printer can produce a "certificate." This document only verifies you've completed the course. It does not mean the course has been academically "certified" or that the course is accredited (counts towards graduation credits). Not only is the MLM training conducted at the University of Chicago not an accredited college course, it is a for profit business venture developed by an individual, which has been primarily attended by existing MLM distributors from around the country, not U of C students.
By the way, I'm not at all implying there is anything wrong with this course (I've heard good things about it), or the text book (which is an excellent resource). All I'm saying is, they don't offer any evidence that colleges and universities are becoming infatuated with MLM.
Personally, I wish the "powers that be" in this industry would spend less time and effort pursuing this academic dead end and focus on enticing the media over to our side (state and federal regulatory agencies are already being lobbied, and there has been progress made there in recent years). The media has great power (excuse my pointing out the absurdly obvious). You could try to persuade your friend to open their mind to network marketing until you're too old to speak and get no where, but if Larry King (or, God forbid, the Oprah!) were to suggest they check it out and you'd have to rent the Rose Bowl for your next opportunity meeting! Yes, it's true that most media lives and dies by advertising dollars and MLM is an industry that does not typically advertise in the mainstream media. But this little catch-22 has already been solved by some inventive MLMers with the cooperation of adventurous, open minded media people. For example, one radio station owner could have charged a top distributor for a nutritional company $12,000 per month for one hour of weekday air time to promote his products. Instead, he agreed to charge nothing for the air time and enroll as a distributor with the condition that all sales volume generated from the show would go in his downline. Now, two-and-a-half years later, there are over 100 other radio stations in his downline and he's earning over five times what he would have charged for the air time.
Imagine if somebody could pull this off with television stations all over the country.
Getting back to the original subject, we should all understand and appreciate that the reason colleges and universities have not accepted MLM (they've had 54 years now, you know) is not because it's not a worthy subject, or that it's not considered a legitimate form of business, or any other reason due to disrespect, it's simply because there's no demand for it. The industry of network marketing, believe it or not, is still a relatively small, undiscovered business alternative (mainly due to the fact that most of the 7 million distributors in this country are all pitching it to each other). And, once again, the business is just too simple to warrant a college level education based on it, or even one college level class. Furthermore, even if there was a sufficient demand, these educational institutions will be too afraid to expose their student body to it. Not because it's wrong or bad, but because it's too good! If offers to many powerful benefits and advantages over those careers that demand an expensive, four to eight year education.
So, no, MLM is not taught at Harvard or Yale, nor will it ever be - and it's something we should brag about!
By Leonard W. Clements © 2000
About the Author
Mr. Clements has been involved in the MLM industry for sixteen years and is a successful distributor for a prominent MLM program.
lenc@network-marketing.com
http://www.network-marketing.com
They haven't, and they won't.
Why not? The reason can be summed up in one simple, logical, oh so obvious answer: No college is ever going to educate their students as to how to earn a living at a profession that does not require a college education!
Think about it for a second (that's as long as it should take to make sense). Colleges and Universities exist on tuition fees, and various other profits derived from their student body. The men and women who run colleges and universities tend to be pretty bright people. They're not likely going to just decide one day "Hey, let's teach these kids how to earn a living without paying us $30,000 a semester!"
Network marketing is a "simple" business, right? Isn't that what we were all told when we first checked out MLM? It "levels the playing field," it allows the "average American to succeed in business," it provides an opportunity for "Sally Homemaker and Joe Toetruck" to be entrepreneurs. We just watch what our successful upline does and simply duplicate the process. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is, in fact, quite simple. So, if we can acquire all the knowledge we need to be successful in this business from a couple of "Big Al" books, and a few training calls from our upline (which is really all it might take), then why would anyone spend over $100,000 and four years of their life studying it? Even if MLM were only offered as a requisite class for a more standard Marketing degree (as opposed to their one day being a degree in MLM), it would still expose the concept, in a positive light, to the entire student body (not necessarily just those who take the class). And once the concept of MLM has been explained to the class itself, it's not that hard to imagine a room for of 19 year olds with little light bulbs above their heads with dollar signs swirling around them. I mean, imagine the kind of ad co-op you could put together with that 100 grand you're about to spend on tuition and books!
Even if, somehow, a few schools do ever offer MLM as part of their curriculum, it will only be for as long as it takes for the entire campus to be blanketed with "Lose 30 pounds in 30 days" fliers, the Dean's car windshield to crack from the weight of all the "Earn $10,000 in 90 days!" cards, and the first dozen restraining orders to be slapped on overly aggressive fellow students.
And I'm only slightly exaggerating.
More realistically, they're teach it until the first student succeeds at it and drops out.
The only way any school could actually avoid a potential loss of revenue, or perhaps even profit by offering classes in MLM, is if the institution itself were to endorse, promote and build a downline in a particular MLM company. It's conceivable they could eventually generate more income from overrides than from tuition fees. It also opens a Pandora's Box full of cans of worms. For example, can you even imagine the wheelin' an' dealin' that would go on behind close doors between MLM companies and campus administration?. In spite of how ridiculous this idea is, and the number of reasons why it would be a fiasco, I have no doubt that someday, somebody, somewhere, is going to try it.
There have been some recent, highly publicized developments related to this issue that would seem to suggest my theory is already proving false. After all, there is a "Certificate" course now being taught at the University of Chicago. A college level text book on direct selling now exists. Representatives from various educational institutions recently met at the University of Texas to discuss, among other things, the idea of embracing direct selling as a part of their curriculum.
First of all, network marketing is a subset of direct selling. It is quite possible to have a discussion about direct selling and not even mention MLM. Even if classes in direct selling emerge there's no guarantee that MLM will be more than a side bar. What's more, one very real possibility is that such a course, if one were to be developed, would focus primarily on starting and running an MLM company (which is the last thing this opportunity saturated industry needs), rather than attracting and educating more distributors (which this industry desperately needs). And just because a college level text book exists doesn't mean any college is ever going to use it. Currently, only the Utah Valley State College has adopted the text book, and only in preparation for an MLM course that may be offered later in the year. What's more, I strongly suspect this course will focus on developing MLM company employees, not distributors (it's no coincidence that the one college preparing to adopt this MLM textbook is right in the middle of the highest concentration of MLM corporate offices in the country). Finally, any laser printer can produce a "certificate." This document only verifies you've completed the course. It does not mean the course has been academically "certified" or that the course is accredited (counts towards graduation credits). Not only is the MLM training conducted at the University of Chicago not an accredited college course, it is a for profit business venture developed by an individual, which has been primarily attended by existing MLM distributors from around the country, not U of C students.
By the way, I'm not at all implying there is anything wrong with this course (I've heard good things about it), or the text book (which is an excellent resource). All I'm saying is, they don't offer any evidence that colleges and universities are becoming infatuated with MLM.
Personally, I wish the "powers that be" in this industry would spend less time and effort pursuing this academic dead end and focus on enticing the media over to our side (state and federal regulatory agencies are already being lobbied, and there has been progress made there in recent years). The media has great power (excuse my pointing out the absurdly obvious). You could try to persuade your friend to open their mind to network marketing until you're too old to speak and get no where, but if Larry King (or, God forbid, the Oprah!) were to suggest they check it out and you'd have to rent the Rose Bowl for your next opportunity meeting! Yes, it's true that most media lives and dies by advertising dollars and MLM is an industry that does not typically advertise in the mainstream media. But this little catch-22 has already been solved by some inventive MLMers with the cooperation of adventurous, open minded media people. For example, one radio station owner could have charged a top distributor for a nutritional company $12,000 per month for one hour of weekday air time to promote his products. Instead, he agreed to charge nothing for the air time and enroll as a distributor with the condition that all sales volume generated from the show would go in his downline. Now, two-and-a-half years later, there are over 100 other radio stations in his downline and he's earning over five times what he would have charged for the air time.
Imagine if somebody could pull this off with television stations all over the country.
Getting back to the original subject, we should all understand and appreciate that the reason colleges and universities have not accepted MLM (they've had 54 years now, you know) is not because it's not a worthy subject, or that it's not considered a legitimate form of business, or any other reason due to disrespect, it's simply because there's no demand for it. The industry of network marketing, believe it or not, is still a relatively small, undiscovered business alternative (mainly due to the fact that most of the 7 million distributors in this country are all pitching it to each other). And, once again, the business is just too simple to warrant a college level education based on it, or even one college level class. Furthermore, even if there was a sufficient demand, these educational institutions will be too afraid to expose their student body to it. Not because it's wrong or bad, but because it's too good! If offers to many powerful benefits and advantages over those careers that demand an expensive, four to eight year education.
So, no, MLM is not taught at Harvard or Yale, nor will it ever be - and it's something we should brag about!
By Leonard W. Clements © 2000
About the Author
Mr. Clements has been involved in the MLM industry for sixteen years and is a successful distributor for a prominent MLM program.
lenc@network-marketing.com
http://www.network-marketing.com
Copyright © 2005-2006 Powered by Custom PHP Programming