Part of the guide: Network Marketing Lead Generation
Most people never read the income disclosure statement before joining a company. The few who do usually read it wrong.
I know because I was both people. I joined this industry part-time in 2002, and for my first several years nobody handed me a disclosure document and I never asked for one. I signed up on a story and a circle drawn on a napkin. Later, in 2006, I built a distributorship in a company where I eventually noticed the ratio underneath the excitement: roughly five distributors for every one actual customer. The numbers were telling the truth the whole time. I just didn’t know how to listen.
An income disclosure statement (IDS) is the one document where a company has to put real math next to the dream. The FTC’s business guidance on multi-level marketing is blunt about the standard: earnings claims have to be truthful and not misleading, and hypothetical scenarios don’t excuse a false impression. So the IDS exists. The question is whether you can read it without fooling yourself.
Here are the seven mistakes I see smart people make, and what to do instead.
In this guide
- Mistake 1: Reading the average instead of the median
- Mistake 2: Not asking who got left out of the denominator
- Mistake 3: Confusing income with profit
- Mistake 4: Ignoring the time window
- Mistake 5: Treating rank percentages as your odds
- Mistake 6: Missing what the money is actually paid on
- Mistake 7: Staying interested when there’s no disclosure at all
- The five-minute discipline
Mistake 1: Reading the average instead of the median
The average is the number companies want you to see, because averages are pulled upward by a handful of enormous earners at the top. One person making $2 million a year drags the “average” of ten thousand people who made almost nothing into territory that sounds livable.
The median is the number that describes the person in the middle. Half earned more, half earned less. When an IDS shows you an average of $2,400 a year and a median of $80, the median is the honest sentence and the average is the sales pitch wearing a calculator.
Find the median. If the document doesn’t publish one, that omission is itself information.
Mistake 2: Not asking who got left out of the denominator
This is the quiet one, and it changes everything.
Many disclosures only count “active” distributors. Sounds reasonable, until you ask what “active” means. Often it means people who placed an order or earned a commission that period. Everyone who paid to join, bought product, made nothing, and drifted away? They vanish from the math. The people most likely to represent your first year get erased before the percentages are calculated.
Read the footnotes and definitions before you read a single dollar figure. Ask two questions: how many people enrolled in total during this period, and how many of them appear in this table? The gap between those numbers is the part of the story the table was built to skip.
Mistake 3: Confusing income with profit
Nearly every IDS reports gross commissions. Not one I’ve ever read deducts what the distributor spent to earn them: the enrollment kit, the monthly autoship, the event tickets, the samples, the tools, the ads.
The FTC’s consumer guidance on MLMs makes the point plainly: most people who join legitimate MLMs make little or no money, and some lose money. That losing happens in the gap between commissions and expenses, which is precisely the gap the IDS doesn’t show.
So build it yourself. Take the median annual figure, then subtract a realistic year of costs for that company. Monthly autoship alone often runs $100 or more. If the median earner grossed $500 for the year, you’re not looking at a small income. You’re looking at a loss with a positive number printed on it.
Mistake 4: Ignoring the time window
Watch the units. Some tables report annual earnings. Some report monthly. Some report the average earnings of people at a rank “while at that rank,” which can mean one good month annualized into a number nobody actually banked. A chart that says top leaders “earn $40,000” means something completely different depending on whether that’s a month, a year, or one leader’s best-ever 30 days presented as typical.
You have been paid late before
You have watched the number on the dashboard not match the number in your account. What is different now is simple: it settles on a public contract you can check yourself, not a dashboard I control.
Read the contract →Most participants earn little to nothing. No income is guaranteed. You can verify every payout on the public smart contract.
Check the period at the top of every table, then convert everything to annual before you compare. Slow, boring, and worth it.
Mistake 5: Treating rank percentages as your odds
Every disclosure shows the pyramid-shaped distribution: a fraction of one percent at the top rank, single digits in the middle, the overwhelming majority at the bottom. The mistake is reading that chart and mentally exempting yourself from it. “Sure, only 0.3% hit Diamond, but I work harder than most people.”
I’ve spent over twenty years around this industry, and I’ve watched genuinely talented, disciplined professionals make this exact assumption. Some of them did beat the odds. Most didn’t, and effort was rarely the difference. The distribution reflects the structure of the compensation plan, timing, and who someone happened to know, at least as much as it reflects work ethic. That’s a big part of why I stepped back from building network marketing seriously after seeing the machine from the very top.
Read the percentages as a description of the system, because that’s what they are.
Mistake 6: Missing what the money is actually paid on
Here’s the thing. Two companies can show identical income tables and be completely different businesses, because the dollars come from different places. Money earned on product sold to real outside customers is retail commerce. Money earned mostly on the purchases of newly recruited distributors is something else, and the FTC has acted on that distinction: the 2016 Herbalife settlement forced the company to restructure so that rewards were tied to verifiable retail sales, not recruitment.
An IDS almost never breaks this out, so you have to investigate around it. Would a normal person buy this product at this price with no income opportunity attached? I’ve written before about the complexity trap and what a real customer actually looks like, and it’s the single most useful lens I know. When I dig into a specific company, like in my Color Street review, the customer question matters more than any earnings table, because customer demand is what makes any of the numbers sustainable.
Mistake 7: Staying interested when there’s no disclosure at all
Some companies publish nothing. Others publish an “income disclaimer” (a legal shield) and hope you mistake it for a disclosure (actual data). And when you ask the person recruiting you for the numbers, you get a story about their upline’s lifestyle instead.
Treat a missing or evasive IDS the same way you’d treat a restaurant that won’t show you the kitchen. It sits near the top of my list of MLM red flags for a reason. A company proud of its economics shows you its economics.
The five-minute discipline
You don’t need an accounting degree for any of this. You need five minutes and the willingness to let a document disappoint you:
- Find the median, not the average.
- Read the definitions and find who’s excluded.
- Subtract a realistic year of expenses.
- Convert every figure to annual.
- Ask where the revenue comes from: customers, or recruits.
The disclosure statement can’t tell you whether you’ll succeed. It can tell you what happened to the last hundred thousand people who believed they would, and that’s the most honest data you’ll get before you sign anything. Read it before the presentation, not after, because after the presentation you’ll be reading it looking for permission.
If you want the fuller picture of how I evaluate opportunities now, and why I lead with customers instead of recruiting, start here. Then go pull the IDS of whatever company is courting you, tonight, and run the five steps. The numbers were never hiding. Most people just never look.
Three posts a day. One email a day.
Everything I publish, in one short daily email. Real numbers, no hype, unsubscribe in one click.
Get paid 100%, on-chain, the second the sale clears
Most affiliates earn little, and that is disclosed up front. The difference here is not a promise about what you will make. It is that you can verify every payout yourself, on a public contract, in about twelve seconds.
See how the payout works →Most participants earn little to nothing. No income is guaranteed. You can verify every payout on the public smart contract.
What’s being described here, without naming it, is base rate neglect – reasoning from the vivid stage story instead of the population table. Mistake 5 is the planning fallacy in miniature.
Philip’s naming it more precisely than I would have. In corporate life we called this ‘the org chart problem’ – everyone at induction sees the CEO’s path to the top and quietly assumes their own trajectory looks similar, right up until year eight when they’re still a regional manager. Same distribution, same denial. The difference here is at least the insurer published a genuine org chart. Half these companies apparently won’t even show you the equivalent document, which given my old employer’s love of transparency theatre is a genuinely low bar to clear.
Philip, interesting analysis, thank you. I am wondering: the FTC guidance mentioned is regulation of United States. In markets like mine where no such requirement exists in law, is the median-versus-average trick still the same one to watch for?
Mistake 5 struck closest to home – treating rank percentages as one’s own odds rather than a description of the system. At sixty-one, having spent a career believing effort was rewarded roughly in proportion to how much of it I applied, the article’s honesty about timing and structure mattering more than character was a useful corrective to receive.
The best case against mistake 7 as stated: a company with no disclosure isn’t automatically worse than one with a bad disclosure, because at least it isn’t dressing up a shrunk denominator as honesty. A document that technically complies with disclosure norms while burying the real numbers three footnotes deep might be doing more damage than silence, since silence at least prompts a skeptical reader to go digging elsewhere for the real numbers instead of trusting a page that looks official. I’m not fully convinced of this myself, but it’s the argument someone actually defending non-disclosure would make, and it’s a good deal stronger than ‘no disclosure automatically equals red flag’ gives it credit for.