A "Working Plan"

Okay... before we continue with farther elaboration of positive company characteristics to look out for...

...here's the first rant of this blog as we all proceed with our lives inside & outside network marketing throughout the Far East - Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Vietnam (Viet Nam), Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Cambodia, etc.

Have you heard the term "working plan" used loosely & frequently (with regards to compensation plans)?

What is the definition of a "working plan"?

Simple really... one that requires one to work till he / she drops.
Essentially, that's what it means... shoot us an email if there's more to it...

Aren't we marketing our products / businesses with the hope of retiring after the fundamentals of a formidable network are built?
It simply defeats the purpose of getting involved in network marketing if one still has to "work till he drops".

Let's do some elementary school math...

Does a 2-person frontline plan make sense effort-wise as compared to a mandatory 3 or 6 or 10-person or any other width-only plan as it goes in unilevel / matrix plans?
Or, is more really the merrier?

Do not forget that in order to meet a company's commission & bonus payment requirements, an intended 6-wide or 10-wide frontline network is required...to be 6-wide or 10-wide and no less.
Otherwise, one will be penalised by the company without fail, and lose out on being fully compensated for product volume their network had generated.

Lets first discuss about each networker's first level...
...and also proceed in this discussion with the above 4 types of networks.

Right away we can see that a 2-person frontline plan comes up champs.
That's only 66% of full effort needed by you as compared to a plan requiring 3.
33% effort of a plan requiring 6.
& only 20% effort of a 10-person unilevel plan.

Let's look at the networker's second level.

Level two consists of 4, 9, 36 & 100 people respectively.
That's 44% effort,
11% effort,
& 4% of effort required by you as compared to a 3, 6 or 10-person plan.

Finally, to not make this too lengthy, lets look at the networker's third level.

Level three will consist of 8, 27, 216 & 1000 people respectively.
That's 30% effort,
4% effort,
& less than 1% effort needed by yourself as compared to a 3, 6 or 10-person unilevel plan.

By "effort", we are referring to the time, resources & energy spent in sponsoring each individual in one's network.
And the additional effort needed in supporting each individual in your downline (be it in business, product, motivation or relationships wise).

Although the numbers of one's network add up quickly in a larger width-wise network, there is no benefit / motivation for individuals in your organisation to assist one another in the larger numbers of sideline individuals' businesses or difficulties.

e.g.
In the case of a 10-person unilevel, each networker (i.e. you) has the responsibility to support each of his 10 sponsored distributors.
Each of these 10 would be primarily concerned in expanding their own network of 10 (& downwards) and have no incentive to support the other 9 sidelines which belong to his Sponsor (you).

The numbers of distributors for you to support simply pile up the deeper you get with no incentive for anybody to help anybody-else from the many sidelines that have formed in such a complex network.

This is where group cohesion comes in, with senior networkers encouraging cross-lines / side-lines to interact & support one another.
But, seriously, what is the point?

Wouldn't one be likely to assist willingly with individuals that directly matter to them??

In a 10-person unilevel, if the 100 people in level 3 need support, it is truly provided by only 11 people. (i.e. their immediate uplines & yourself)

In a simple 2-person network if there are 100 people who need support... support will be willingly (& perhaps automatically) given by 50 people (or more, depending on the network's dynamics) because of the depth of the network.

With greater support readily available for each distributor in a binary in times of need, which compensation plan better fits the seemingly derogatory term "working plan"??
You tell us.

In our opinion, a working plan where you work till you drop with much fewer opportunities to take a break, is one that promotes width.


Note: we've yet to bring in the fact that in the case of most small-width plans, additional sponsored individuals (beyond the minimum required 2 or 3) are placed below other downlines, hence proving to these downlines that their network is indeed growing.
This "spillover" serves as motivation, if nothing else.

Even in traditional companies / marketing teams which payplans do not feature such "default" business dynamics, the leaders have been attempting to "force" spillovers just to "show" business momentum. A lot of the time, this action flouts their (traditional) company's business policies & procedures, and puts their business at risk of being terminated when their commission cheques run big enough.

(This is not possible / encouraged in some plans. Which means downlines are pretty much are on their own in building a network. This leads to situations where if downlines meet obstacles in finding their own many individuals to sponsor...they'll more than likely drop out. It is a sad but true fact.)

Nonetheless spillover aside, for a comp plan to work successfully, do your part to spread the word to the minimalist 2-person (or 10. <-- haha, if you still insist on participating in such a plan.) frontline and watch the network work its dynamics.

---

Do WITHOUT the juice/vitamin/cosmetic/household "stuff".
Find a niche & the market will come to you!

请联络... 听听华语讲解


>> Click Here Now <<

& Be First!