6 ms·

> the guys at the top aren't getting rich from Amyway, they were getting rich from everyone buying tapes, books, and going to these conferences. I've noticed

by jnbiche 10y ago

> the guys at the top aren't getting rich from Amyway, they were getting rich from everyone buying tapes, books, and going to these conferences. I've noticed the same about many of the super successful "entrepreneurs" who frequent places like /r/Entrepreneurship, various entrepreneurship blogs, and even sometimes here on HN. They get rich off of selling books, classes, access to "forums" [sic], and from referrals to their fellow "entrepreneurs", and not from any other entrepreneurial activity that they've done previously.

pc86 10y ago
It's the same as the reason why people like Pat Flynn make 25x more from affiliate fees than from any of their actual businesses. There are a lot more people who want to "make money" than there are people who want to "start and grow a business." PF makes money selling tools that help people make money online (doing anything - read some of his article on "article spinning" and how he defends it and it will make you want to vomit). Darren Rowse makes money selling tools that help people make money blogging. Even Nathan Barry (who I'm a big fan of) made a lot more money from Authority than he ever did from his design books. ConvertKit was just a shift from product to service. Along the same vein, a lot of people in Amway want to "make money" and not very many want to "start and grow an MLM business." Selling $40 CDs and lecturing your down-line about buying non-Alticor products is just the best way to do it.
- jaredhansen 10y ago
  >There are a lot more people who want to "make money" than there are people who want to "start and grow a business." Exactly right. Cf "Everybody wanna be a bodybuilder, but don't nobody wanna lift no heavy-ass weights."
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
heartbreak 10y ago
I see exactly this from sites like unicornfree.com. And I don't mean that as a slight against @amyhoy. Occasionally I get a similar vibe from @patio11, but I still respect his incredibly good insights. These are people who are very involved in the startup community and contribute a whole lot more value than most people. They just like to sell knowledge as well as give it away.
- patio11 10y ago
  I get where this comes from with regards to Amway, but I'm really puzzled as to why geeks pattern match all teaching to scummy "make money online" infomarketing. Nobody ever says "I kinda get the vibe that, in addition to your virtuous OSS contributions, you might be angling to sell software / programming time. Not that there is anything wrong with that." Well, yes. I was employed as an engineer; I then ran a succession of software businesses. Taking money for software is indeed what one does in these jobs / businesses. HN seems to be pretty well-acquainted with selling software for money. I wish HN were similarly well acquainted with training, consulting, or infoproducts, to pick three examples of business models which "sell knowledge" if you squint a bit. They are no less real, value-producing businesses than software is. They happen to be easier to build and grow to mid six figures than SaaS businesses, in a way which is of material interest to the stated goals of many HNers, and I say that as someone whose financial situation is historically dominated by SaaS businesses.
  - gadders 10y ago
    I think the issue I have is with people who create info products on how to create info products.
  - heartbreak 10y ago
    I'm not sure why I pattern-match sites like unicornfree into the same bucket as scummy "make money online" infomarketing, but I do. I wish I could identify the cause, because it would probably help people running legitimate sites like Unicornfree to avoid the vibe. Maybe it's related to a stigma against selling knowledge in general. Consider Aaron Swartz and the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto. Many geeks tend to do a lot of learning via freely available content online, and may be even more inclined than the average person to want open access to knowledge. Just some thoughts. Have you run into this reaction from geeks before?
pjc50 10y ago
There's an element of this in book writing "author services" too; enough people want the status of being a writer that they're prepared to pump money into promotion and editing while never receiving any discouraging criticism.

by jnbiche 10y ago

pc86 10y ago

It's the same as the reason why people like Pat Flynn make 25x more from affiliate fees than from any of their actual businesses. There are a lot more people who want to "make money" than there are people who want to "start and grow a business." PF makes money selling tools that help people make money online (doing anything - read some of his article on "article spinning" and how he defends it and it will make you want to vomit). Darren Rowse makes money selling tools that help people make money blogging. Even Nathan Barry (who I'm a big fan of) made a lot more money from Authority than he ever did from his design books. ConvertKit was just a shift from product to service. Along the same vein, a lot of people in Amway want to "make money" and not very many want to "start and grow an MLM business." Selling $40 CDs and lecturing your down-line about buying non-Alticor products is just the best way to do it.

jaredhansen 10y ago
>There are a lot more people who want to "make money" than there are people who want to "start and grow a business." Exactly right. Cf "Everybody wanna be a bodybuilder, but don't nobody wanna lift no heavy-ass weights."
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

heartbreak 10y ago

I see exactly this from sites like unicornfree.com. And I don't mean that as a slight against @amyhoy. Occasionally I get a similar vibe from @patio11, but I still respect his incredibly good insights. These are people who are very involved in the startup community and contribute a whole lot more value than most people. They just like to sell knowledge as well as give it away.

patio11 10y ago
I get where this comes from with regards to Amway, but I'm really puzzled as to why geeks pattern match all teaching to scummy "make money online" infomarketing. Nobody ever says "I kinda get the vibe that, in addition to your virtuous OSS contributions, you might be angling to sell software / programming time. Not that there is anything wrong with that." Well, yes. I was employed as an engineer; I then ran a succession of software businesses. Taking money for software is indeed what one does in these jobs / businesses. HN seems to be pretty well-acquainted with selling software for money. I wish HN were similarly well acquainted with training, consulting, or infoproducts, to pick three examples of business models which "sell knowledge" if you squint a bit. They are no less real, value-producing businesses than software is. They happen to be easier to build and grow to mid six figures than SaaS businesses, in a way which is of material interest to the stated goals of many HNers, and I say that as someone whose financial situation is historically dominated by SaaS businesses.
- gadders 10y ago
  I think the issue I have is with people who create info products on how to create info products.
- heartbreak 10y ago
  I'm not sure why I pattern-match sites like unicornfree into the same bucket as scummy "make money online" infomarketing, but I do. I wish I could identify the cause, because it would probably help people running legitimate sites like Unicornfree to avoid the vibe. Maybe it's related to a stigma against selling knowledge in general. Consider Aaron Swartz and the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto. Many geeks tend to do a lot of learning via freely available content online, and may be even more inclined than the average person to want open access to knowledge. Just some thoughts. Have you run into this reaction from geeks before?

pjc50 10y ago

There's an element of this in book writing "author services" too; enough people want the status of being a writer that they're prepared to pump money into promotion and editing while never receiving any discouraging criticism.