Over at the Amway Talk forum, there was a long and interesting debate about the use of the term quitters and losers. Certainly over the years, many have left the Amway business. Some sign up and never do a thing, some put in a little effort and quit, and some do a lot, and still quit. Certainly though, someone who chooses not to participate in Amway should not be criticized, especially when selling newspapers or panhandling can be much more lucrative on average.
One blogger justified the position by saying if you quit, then quite simply, you are a quitter. I guess in a way, that is true, at least on the surface. But the way it is done by IBOs is mean spirited and divisive. My upline used to say there are winners and losers. Winners were in this room, we were told (in an Amway meeting). And this statement was followed up with a statement like "and if you're not a winner, that makes you a l-o-s-e-r". In my opinion, my upline made statements like these simply to use subtle pressure to make IBOs not want to quit, because then you morph from a winner into a loser.
This labeling of winners and broke losers may not be true of all uplines, but based on my experience in dealing with IBOs, certainly it is probably true with the majority of uplines, and possibly to some extent, in all LOS's.
If an IBO puts forth effort and makes no money and quits, isn't that prudent? If an IBO cannot build a business because of high prices and a bad Amway reputation and quits, isn't that prudent? If an IBO finds he/she hasn't the time needed to run a business, is that person a loser? Based on how some IBOs think, anyone without the goal of crown ambassador is a broke loser. Again, this is not something the critics of Amway make up, but simply pointing out IBO behavior. The IBOs who get angry just cannot handle the truth.