Deprecated: Function create_function() is deprecated in /nas/content/live/directss/wp-content/plugins/email-address-encoder/email-address-encoder.php on line 80
In today’s economy, there are a plethora of multi-level marketing companies in the arena, each occupying its own share of space.
However, as is the case in any healthy capitalist economy, some companies perform better than others, for a host of reasons.
There will always be an organization making up for the lack of another in the market.
As they say, variety is the spice of life and there is no paucity of variety in the market. If one company falters, another is ready in the wings to take over the quickest chance it gets.
The following is a list of multi-level marketing companies that have demonstrated the worst performance in the last five years. We will be studying the company’s revenue data to see if there has been a decline or if the company has been logging an inconsistent performance and rank them accordingly.
1. Diana Co Ltd ($144.5 million)
The first company on the list is Diana Co Ltd. Headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, Diana Co Ltd. deals in beauty and wellness products as well as some lingerie products. It also focuses on making women financially independent through its direct selling business opportunities.
In the financial year 2017, according to Direct Selling News, Diana made an annual revenue of $144.5 million.
The company is largely based in Japan and for a single-market company, this revenue data is encouraging.
If we compare data from the last five years, however, the company has shown an unsteady performance.
In 2013, the company made a whopping $166 million, $22 million more than its revenue in 2017.
The following year, the company logged in an even better performance of $204 million.
Things took a dip from 2015 onwards, however. In that year, the company’s revenue dipped from $204 million to $139 million.
The year 2016 was even worse, with the company’s revenue going down to $98 million.
The following year is without a doubt a marked improvement of nearly $46 million but there are several other companies that have performed well consistently that are ranked higher on the list.
Besides, the Japanese beauty and wellness industry is booming, as evidenced by this article by Refinery29. There are several options available not only for the people of Japan but even in the international market. Perhaps the list made from assessing 2018 data will be more hospitable to this Japanese company.
2. Naris Cosmetics ($138 million)
Another Japanese company, this time headquartered in Osaka, Naris Cosmetics has been around since 1931 (that’s even before World War II!).
As the name suggests, the company deals in cosmetics and skincare products.
Again, Japan offers a vibrant skincare market, with several traditional, innovative beauty treatments translating into modern lifestyle products, something explored in this article by Vogue. Therefore, if one company shows signs of weakness, there are several others that are available and offer more.
In 2017, the company raked in an annual revenue of $138 million, not too far off from Diana Co Ltd. listed above.
Naris’ revenue has, however, gone down from its 2016 figure of $144 million and the trend has only been one of decline.
Taking into account the company’s numbers in the last five years, Naris made $214 million in 2013, followed by a whopping $282 million in 2014.
From 2015 onwards, however, the company could not recreate its performance of the previous year.
The numbers dropped to $178 million in 2015, followed by $144 million in 2016 and another $5 million drop in 2017 as already mentioned, giving Naris a spot on this post.
3. Tiens/Tianshi ($118 million)
Tiens or Tianshi is an international brand headquartered in Tianjin, China.
Founded in 1990, the company has seen enormous success with its health, wellness and skin care products, as well as household goods.
But it has been logging a disappointing performance in the last few years.
While the company’s $118 million revenue in 2017 may seem impressive enough, if we take into account that it has a presence in 110 international markets, perspectives may change.
In 2016, the company made $695 million dollars. If that seems like a lot, consider this – in 2015, the company made $1.55 billion and was ranked number 11 on the Direct Selling News (DSN) list of the Global 100.
The year before, Tiens made $1.16 billion. Incidentally, that was also the year the company came under some scrutiny over its practices, as reported by The Guardian.
Nevertheless, its drop from a billion-dollar company to a million-dollar company has surely been a cause for concern for executive Li Jinyuan.
Based on pure revenue drop this is the worst multi level marketing company on this list performance wise
In January 2018, the company launched a new brand strategy to target the global market and incentivize young people, especially those under the age of 30.
4. Naturally Plus ($111 million)
Another company from the East, Naturally Plus is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. Founded in 1999, the company deals in cosmetics, food and beverages, as well as personal care and wellness products.
The company dabbles in nearly 100 markets worldwide, selling science-based nutritional supplements.
In 2017, the company made an annual revenue of $111 million.
This was a huge dip from the $300 million the company raked in in 2016.
At $339 million, the 2015 numbers were even more promising. The steady decline, however, accords the company a spot on this list.
From several reviews we read of the company, one of its primary products, IZUMIO (hydrogen water), has caused intrigue in the market. There have been debates about whether hydrogen water is even healthy given that water already has hydrogen – this TIME article encapsulates the arguments in the debate. With the product often proving hard to sell to skeptical customers, perhaps Naturally Plus’ revenues has been affected over time too. This, of course, is only speculation.
So that was a list of four of the worst performing multi-level marketing companies based on their revenue data. Some of these companies have shown marked improvements from previous years but still rank low due to lower numbers. Others have shown inconsistent trends and therefore have found a place on this list. Perhaps the list will look different at the end of FY 2018.