Direct selling
Direct selling is a retail distribution model in which independent representatives market consumer goods and services directly to end-users through personal interactions, typically in non-retail environments such as homes or online, circumventing traditional brick-and-mortar stores and wholesale intermediaries.[1] This approach emphasizes person-to-person relationships, with sales often occurring via demonstrations, parties, or referrals, and compensation structured around product volume moved rather than fixed salaries.[2] The industry, valued at approximately $194.89 billion globally in 2024, spans categories like wellness supplements, cosmetics, and household items, with major players operating multi-level compensation plans that reward both direct sales and recruitment of sub-distributors.[3] While direct selling includes single-level models focused solely on personal retail, it frequently overlaps with multi-level marketing (MLM), where earnings derive from downline networks, enabling scalability but introducing dependency on continuous expansion.[4] Proponents highlight its low-barrier entry for entrepreneurship, particularly appealing to women and part-time workers, fostering flexible income streams amid economic shifts.[5] However, direct selling has faced persistent controversies over unsustainable economics and deceptive practices, with Federal Trade Commission analyses revealing that the vast majority of participants—often exceeding 99% in reviewed disclosures—earn $1,000 or less annually after expenses, underscoring high attrition and net losses for most.[6][7] Regulatory actions, including FTC settlements against prominent firms for unsubstantiated income claims and pyramid scheme risks, reflect causal mechanisms where recruitment emphasis overshadows viable retail, eroding participant trust and prompting calls for stricter disclosures.[8] These dynamics distinguish legitimate direct selling from illegal schemes, yet empirical patterns of low profitability persist across the sector.[9]Definition and Fundamentals
Core Definition and Mechanisms
Direct selling constitutes a retail channel whereby companies market products and services directly to consumers through independent sales representatives, bypassing traditional fixed retail outlets and intermediaries.[10][11] This approach emphasizes personal, face-to-face interactions or demonstrations, occurring in settings such as homes, workplaces, or online via personal networks, rather than impersonal methods like catalogs or mass advertising.[12][13] At its core, the mechanism operates via independent contractors—often termed distributors, consultants, or representatives—who affiliate with a direct selling company by agreeing to its terms, typically without employment status.[10] These individuals acquire products at wholesale prices from the company and resell them to end consumers at suggested retail prices, earning the difference as their primary compensation, which incentivizes volume sales and customer relationships.[14][15] Companies support this by providing training, marketing materials, and product guarantees, while representatives bear the costs of inventory, transportation, and sales efforts, reflecting a low-barrier entry model that leverages entrepreneurial effort over capital investment.[11][16] Sales mechanisms prioritize building trust through personalized consultations, product trials, or group events like home parties, where demonstrations highlight product utility to drive immediate purchases.[12][14] Compensation structures focus on retail margins, with potential bonuses for achieving sales targets or volume thresholds, though earnings vary widely based on individual effort and market penetration, as empirical data from industry reports indicate average annual incomes often below full-time equivalents after expenses.[11][14] This direct linkage between seller performance and payout fosters accountability but exposes participants to risks like unsold inventory, underscoring the model's reliance on persistent personal selling over institutional support.[15]Distinction from Related Models
Direct selling operates outside conventional retail environments, such as brick-and-mortar stores, by facilitating person-to-person transactions directly between sellers and consumers, often through home demonstrations, parties, or personal networks, thereby eliminating intermediaries and fixed overhead costs associated with traditional retail models.[17] In contrast, traditional retail relies on centralized locations with inventory displays, advertising, and storefront leases, where sales occur via impersonal shelf selection rather than relational or experiential selling.[18] This distinction enables direct selling to emphasize product education and customization but exposes participants to variable income tied to personal effort rather than guaranteed foot traffic.[19] A critical differentiation lies between legitimate direct selling and illegal pyramid schemes, the latter of which prioritize recruitment of new participants over genuine product distribution, deriving most revenue from enrollment fees with minimal retail sales to end-users.[20] The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) assesses legitimacy by examining whether a substantial volume—typically over 70% in some analyses—of sales occur to non-participants, ensuring economic viability rests on consumer demand rather than internal purchases that sustain upper levels at the expense of recruits.[8] Pyramid schemes, by design, collapse as recruitment saturates, whereas direct selling models sustain through repeatable retail transactions, though some multi-level variants risk blurring this line if recruitment incentives overshadow product focus.[21] Direct selling also contrasts with affiliate marketing and e-commerce, where compensation stems from digital referrals or online storefronts without requiring personal inventory handling or in-person interactions.[22] Affiliate models generate commissions via links and traffic generation, often without product possession, while e-commerce platforms manage fulfillment remotely, bypassing the direct seller's role in demonstrations or relationship-building.[23] These online approaches scale via algorithms and ads but lack the tactile, trust-based elements central to direct selling's efficacy in sectors like cosmetics or wellness products.[24]Historical Development
Origins in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries
Direct selling in its modern organized form emerged in the United States during the late 19th century, primarily as a response to limited retail infrastructure in rural and expanding frontier areas, where traveling sales agents delivered goods directly to consumers' homes.[25] One of the earliest structured examples was the J.R. Watkins Medical Company, founded in 1868 by Joseph Ray Watkins in Plainview, Minnesota, which began with door-to-door sales of homemade liniment made from camphor and capsicum, expanding to a network of commissioned agents selling remedies, extracts, and household products across the Midwest.[26] By emphasizing personal demonstrations and repeat orders, Watkins established a model of agent-based distribution that avoided middlemen and fixed stores, achieving international reach with a Winnipeg branch by 1913.[27] In 1886, David H. McConnell launched the California Perfume Company (later Avon Products) after transitioning from book sales to offering perfume samples as incentives, recognizing demand for the fragrances over the books themselves.[28] McConnell innovated by recruiting women—starting with Mrs. P.F.E. Albee—as independent sales representatives who conducted door-to-door visits and home demonstrations, providing income opportunities to housewives in an era when women's workforce participation was limited; this approach sold small perfume bottles and toiletries, growing to incorporate as a company in New York by 1916.[29] The model's success stemmed from leveraging social trust in personal networks and the portability of lightweight consumer goods, contrasting with heavier industrial products. Entering the early 20th century, Alfred C. Fuller founded the Fuller Brush Company in 1906 in Hartford, Connecticut, after immigrating from Nova Scotia and initially crafting brushes from wire and bristles to sell door-to-door.[30] Fuller's operation scaled by manufacturing durable cleaning tools in-house and training a sales force of "brush men" who used scripted pitches and product samples to secure orders, reaching peak employment of over 260,000 dealers by the 1930s through emphasis on quality and direct consumer feedback.[31] Similarly, Madam C.J. Walker initiated direct sales of her hair care products in 1905, targeting African American women with scalp treatments developed from personal experience, building a force of 40,000 agents by 1919 via training clubs and personal endorsements.[32] These ventures collectively formalized direct selling as a viable channel for household essentials, capitalizing on geographic isolation from urban retail and the relational dynamics of face-to-face transactions, though reliant on individual agent persistence amid variable incomes.[25]Mid-20th Century Expansion
The mid-20th century marked a period of significant expansion for direct selling, fueled by post-World War II economic prosperity, suburbanization, and the desire of many housewives to generate supplemental income without entering traditional workplaces. This era saw the refinement of innovative sales models like home parties and the emergence of multi-level compensation structures, which capitalized on social networks and consumer demand for household and personal care products. By 1964, the U.S. direct selling industry had grown to approximately $3 billion in annual sales, supported by around 1.5 million distributors, reflecting rapid adoption driven by these post-war dynamics.[33] A pivotal innovation was the party plan model, exemplified by Tupperware. In the late 1940s, Brownie Wise developed in-home demonstration parties—initially called "Patio Parties"—to market plastic storage containers, which proved ineffective in retail settings due to consumer unfamiliarity with their sealing mechanism. Tupperware shifted exclusively to this direct sales approach in 1951, leveraging women's social gatherings in suburban homes to demonstrate product utility, fostering peer-to-peer endorsements and immediate purchases. By 1954, the company had approximately 20,000 independent sellers, predominantly women, who earned commissions while reinforcing domestic roles through sales events that combined socializing with commerce.[34][35] This model not only boosted Tupperware's sales but also empowered participants by providing flexible earning opportunities amid cultural expectations of homemaking.[36] The 1950s and early 1960s also witnessed the rise of multi-level marketing (MLM) within direct selling, which layered recruitment incentives atop product sales to accelerate distributor growth. Amway, founded on November 5, 1959, by Jay Van Andel and Richard DeVos in Ada, Michigan, pioneered this structure by distributing Nutrilite vitamins through a network where distributors earned from personal sales and overrides on recruits' volumes. This approach addressed inventory and recruitment challenges in traditional direct sales, enabling exponential expansion via personal relationships rather than mass advertising. Amway's early focus on health supplements aligned with rising post-war interest in wellness, contributing to the industry's shift toward scalable, participant-driven models.[37][38] In cosmetics, Mary Kay Cosmetics, launched on September 13, 1963, by Mary Kay Ash in Dallas, Texas, with an initial $5,000 investment, further exemplified mid-century direct selling's appeal to women. Ash's model emphasized in-home skincare demonstrations and a tiered commission system rewarding recruitment and sales volume, targeting housewives and part-time workers. By prioritizing product efficacy through direct interaction—eschewing retail intermediaries—the company rapidly built a sales force, capitalizing on the era's growing emphasis on personal beauty amid economic affluence. These developments collectively transformed direct selling from niche peddling into a mainstream channel, with party plans and MLM structures proving resilient to economic shifts by embedding sales in interpersonal trust.[39][40]Globalization and Modern Evolution
The globalization of direct selling accelerated in the post-World War II era, with pioneering firms extending operations beyond North America and Western Europe. Amway, founded in 1959, marked the first major international multi-level marketing expansion by entering Canada in 1962, followed by markets in Europe and Asia throughout the 1960s and 1970s.[41] This outward push was driven by untapped consumer demand in developing economies and the model's low-barrier entry for distributors, enabling rapid scaling in regions with limited traditional retail infrastructure. By the 1980s, despite global economic recessions, the industry birthed enduring leaders such as Herbalife (1980) and Nu Skin (1984), which prioritized international markets from inception, further embedding direct selling in diverse cultural contexts.[32] The 1990s and early 2000s witnessed explosive growth in Asia and Latin America, fueled by economic liberalization and rising middle classes. In Asia-Pacific, direct selling sales reached USD 89 billion by 2022, propelled by a 7.2% compound annual growth rate from 2023 onward, with countries like China, India, and South Korea emerging as hotspots due to regulatory approvals and demographic shifts toward entrepreneurship.[42] Latin America similarly became a bastion, accounting for about 25% of regional beauty and personal care sales via direct channels by the early 2020s, as firms adapted to local preferences in nations like Brazil and Mexico amid informal economies.[43] However, this expansion introduced intercultural hurdles, including mismatched messaging across borders and varying legal standards, necessitating localized strategies to sustain legitimacy.[44] In the modern era, direct selling has evolved through technological integration and regulatory scrutiny to counter e-commerce disruptions. The advent of the internet in the mid-1990s prompted a pivot from door-to-door tactics to online platforms, with social media and virtual demonstrations becoming staples by the 2010s, enabling global recruitment and sales amid the 2008 financial crisis.[45] Post-2020, adaptations accelerated: firms incorporated AI for personalization, mobile tools for distributor enablement, and hybrid models blending physical parties with e-commerce to navigate pandemic lockdowns and rising online retail competition.[46] Regulatory frameworks tightened globally, with bodies like the U.S. FTC emphasizing retail sales thresholds to distinguish legitimate operations from pyramid schemes, while emerging markets imposed stricter licensing to curb fraud.[47] These shifts have sustained industry resilience, though persistent challenges like distributor attrition and pricing premiums relative to mass retail underscore the need for product innovation and ethical compliance.[48]Business Models and Operations
Single-Level Direct Selling
Single-level direct selling refers to a retail distribution model in which independent sales representatives earn income exclusively from the products or services they personally sell to end consumers, without recruiting or building a downline of sub-distributors.[14] Representatives typically purchase inventory at wholesale prices from the parent company and resell at retail prices, retaining the markup as profit, or operate on a commission basis for drop-shipped orders where the company handles fulfillment.[49] This approach emphasizes one-on-one interactions, such as door-to-door visits, in-home demonstrations, online consultations, or catalog-based sales, bypassing traditional retail intermediaries to facilitate direct consumer access.[17] Operationally, participants in single-level direct selling function as independent contractors, often with low entry barriers like minimal startup fees for product samples or marketing materials, and flexibility in setting their own schedules.[50] Earnings are directly proportional to individual sales volume, incentivizing focus on product quality, customer relationships, and repeat business rather than network expansion.[51] Unlike multi-level marketing (MLM), which layers commissions from recruits' sales across multiple tiers, single-level models lack hierarchical recruitment incentives, reducing risks associated with unsustainable downline dependency and aligning revenue more closely with verifiable product movement.[52] This distinction positions single-level selling as a purer form of direct retail, where viability hinges on genuine demand rather than recruitment-driven growth, though specific income data remains aggregated with broader direct selling statistics, showing median annual earnings for U.S. participants around $2,400 in 2022 across models.[53] Examples of single-level implementations include traditional door-to-door sales of household goods or personal care items by independent agents, as seen in early models before widespread MLM adoption, and modern adaptations like commission-only e-commerce affiliates selling directly via personal networks without team-building requirements.[54] Empirical comparisons indicate that salespeople in single-level organizations report higher satisfaction with sales autonomy compared to multi-level counterparts, attributing this to clearer performance linkages and fewer ethical concerns over recruitment pressures, though comprehensive longitudinal studies on outcomes like retention or profitability specific to single-level remain limited.[55] Regulatory bodies, such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, view single-level structures favorably when product sales predominate, as they minimize pyramid scheme risks inherent in recruitment-focused variants.Multi-Level Marketing Structures
Multi-level marketing (MLM) structures operate by recruiting independent distributors who earn commissions from their direct sales of products or services, as well as from the sales generated by their recruited downline participants, forming a hierarchical network.[8] This model incentivizes recruitment alongside retail sales, with compensation plans designed to reward volume across multiple levels, typically up to infinity in depth, distinguishing it from single-level direct selling.[56] Unlike pyramid schemes, which the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines as illegal operations emphasizing recruitment over genuine product sales, legitimate MLMs must prioritize retail distribution to participants and end-users to avoid classification as pyramids.[8] The FTC evaluates plans based on whether income derives primarily from product sales rather than participant investments or recruitment fees, as ruled in cases like FTC v. BurnLounge (2014), where emphasis on the opportunity itself over products led to pyramid findings.[8] Common MLM compensation plans include unilevel, binary, and matrix structures, each varying in how downline recruitment and volume are balanced against earnings. In a unilevel plan, distributors sponsor recruits directly under them in a single wide level, earning commissions on unlimited personal downline sales volume, often 5-10% per level, with bonuses for team growth; this encourages broad recruitment but can dilute commissions across many participants.[57] Binary plans restrict each distributor to two "legs" of downline recruits, paying commissions—typically 10-20%—on the weaker leg's balanced volume to promote team balancing and depth over width, though spillover from upline can artificially inflate lower levels.[57] Matrix or forced matrix plans cap width (e.g., 3-5 wide) and depth (e.g., 3-6 levels), compressing recruits into predefined slots for faster advancement and cycling bonuses, but this can lead to overflow challenges and requires high recruitment rates to fill structures.[57] Hybrid plans combine elements, such as binary with unilevel breakaways, to mitigate weaknesses like imbalance or stagnation.[58] Empirical data reveals that MLM structures often yield net losses for most participants, with FTC analysis of 70 income disclosure statements from 2016-2023 showing median annual earnings below $1,000 for active distributors, and over 99% of participants failing to reach top income tiers.[59] A 2022 study of Herbalife's FTC settlement data found that 87% of participants received refunds due to losses, with higher loss rates in areas of lower female labor participation, indicating recruitment targets vulnerable groups rather than sustainable sales.[60] Economic modeling suggests that in competitive markets, MLM profitability hinges on infinite recruitment chains, which collapse under saturation, leading to 50% of participants incurring losses and only 25% breaking even, as recruitment-driven plans prioritize early entrants over later ones.[61] These outcomes underscore causal reliance on exponential growth, where retail sales alone rarely sustain the multi-tier payouts promised.[61]Hybrid and Party Plan Approaches
The party plan approach in direct selling involves consultants organizing social gatherings, typically hosted in private homes or virtually, where products are demonstrated to a group of invited guests, facilitating interactive sales through personal demonstrations and peer influence.[62] This method emphasizes building trust via social connections, with the host often receiving incentives like free products based on sales volume generated at the event.[63] Originating as an evolution from one-to-one sales, the party plan model was formalized in the mid-20th century, notably advanced by figures like Norman Squires, shifting direct selling toward group dynamics to amplify reach and sales efficiency.[64] Companies such as Tupperware, which popularized in-home demonstrations starting in the 1940s, and modern examples like Pampered Chef and Mary Kay, exemplify its application, often integrating recruitment elements where attendees are encouraged to host future parties.[65][66] Hybrid approaches in direct selling combine elements of single-level marketing—focused on personal sales commissions—with multi-level marketing structures that include recruitment incentives and downline overrides, creating a versatile pay and operational framework.[67] This model adapts by incorporating party plan tactics for group sales alongside individual recruiting, allowing consultants to earn from both direct product sales and team-building efforts without rigid adherence to pure MLM hierarchies.[67] For instance, hybrid systems may blend unilevel compensation for direct recruits with binary elements for balanced growth, enabling scalability while mitigating risks associated with heavy recruitment dependency.[68] Such hybrids have gained traction in direct selling firms seeking to balance consumer-facing sales with distributor expansion, as seen in companies like Vorwerk, which evolved its party plan roots into multifaceted operations since 1883.[66] Empirical data from industry analyses indicate hybrids enhance retention by diversifying income streams, though success hinges on product quality and market saturation avoidance.[57]Industry Scale and Economic Role
Market Size and Growth Metrics
The global direct selling industry generated retail sales of $167.6 billion in 2023, marking a 2.3% decline from the previous year, according to data compiled by the World Federation of Direct Selling Associations (WFDSA) from its member associations.[69] This figure reflects a stabilization after pandemic-era fluctuations, with sales remaining above pre-2019 levels despite broader retail sector headwinds such as inflation and e-commerce competition.[70] Independent estimates from market research firms vary, with some projecting higher valuations—such as $223.8 billion for 2024 retail sales—potentially incorporating wholesale volumes or broader channel definitions not aligned with WFDSA's retail-only focus.[71] In the United States, the sector achieved $36.7 billion in retail sales in 2023, serving 37.7 million customers and demonstrating resilience through diversification into services alongside traditional goods.[72] Europe recorded sales growth of 3.9% in 2023, driven by markets like Germany (up 7.0%), amid a regional retail environment where overall sales rose only 2.9%.[73] Asia-Pacific remains the largest regional contributor, accounting for over half of global volume, though precise 2023 breakdowns highlight slower growth in mature markets like China due to regulatory pressures.[74] Projections for future growth are modest, with WFDSA-aligned forecasts anticipating annual compound growth rates (CAGR) of 4-6% through 2030, contingent on adaptation to digital tools and regulatory compliance; more conservative estimates peg CAGR at 1.7-5.3%, emphasizing challenges from pyramid scheme scrutiny and shifting consumer preferences.[75] [76] The industry's sales force exceeded 180 million distributors worldwide in 2023, underscoring its scale despite uneven income distribution among participants.[77]| Region | 2023 Retail Sales (USD Billion) | YoY Growth |
|---|---|---|
| Global | 167.6 | -2.3% |
| United States | 36.7 | N/A |
| Europe | N/A (aggregate growth noted) | +3.9% |
Employment, Income, and Participant Outcomes
Direct selling engages approximately 128 million independent representatives worldwide as of 2022, with the United States hosting around 14.6 million participants in 2022, many of whom operate on a part-time basis for supplemental income.[78][79] These participants function as independent contractors rather than traditional employees, offering flexibility that appeals particularly to women (74% of U.S. direct sellers) and those seeking low-barrier entry into entrepreneurship without fixed hours or overhead costs like storefronts.[80] However, this model lacks standard employment protections, such as minimum wage guarantees or benefits, exposing participants to variable outcomes dependent on personal sales and recruitment efforts.[20] Participant income remains low for the majority, with median annual gross earnings reported at around $3,000 in the U.S. as of 2022 by the Direct Selling Association, though Federal Trade Commission analysis of 70 multi-level marketing income disclosure statements from 2024 highlights methodological flaws that overstate typical returns, such as reliance on skewed averages excluding inactive distributors or unadjusted for expenses like inventory purchases.[81][6] Net profitability often turns negative after deducting costs, with studies indicating median incomes as low as $240 annually for active sellers in large U.S. MLMs and less than $5,000 across various firms when considering all participants.[82][83] Top earners, comprising under 1% of participants, skew averages upward (e.g., $94,000+ for the top 1% in some disclosures), but the bottom 50-90% frequently report minimal or zero commissions, underscoring a highly skewed distribution where recruitment-driven models amplify losses for non-elites.[84][85] High attrition rates reflect these financial realities, with U.S. direct selling firms retaining only about 20% of distributors long-term, as most exit within the first year due to unprofitable sales volumes and recruitment challenges.[86] Participant outcomes empirically favor a small subset achieving sustainable income—often those with extensive networks—while the majority experience net financial detriment, opportunity costs, and disillusionment, despite industry claims of empowerment through skills like networking.[6] Federal scrutiny emphasizes that legitimate direct selling prioritizes retail sales over recruitment to mitigate pyramid-like risks, yet data from disclosures consistently show the latter dominating earnings for survivors, contributing to widespread participant churn.[59][20]Comparative Economic Impact Versus Traditional Retail
Direct selling constitutes a small segment of the global retail landscape, generating $167.7 billion in retail sales in 2023 according to constant U.S. dollars, while the total global retail sector reached approximately $29.7 trillion in the same year.[87][88] This positions direct selling as less than 1% of overall retail activity, highlighting traditional retail's overwhelming scale in driving consumer expenditure, supply chain logistics, and GDP contributions worldwide. In the United States, direct selling's $40.5 billion in retail sales for 2022—its second-highest on record—pales against the domestic retail market's over $7 trillion, underscoring the former's niche role amid traditional retail's foundational economic presence.[89][90] Employment impacts differ markedly in structure and stability. Direct selling relies on independent contractors, with 6.7 million U.S. participants in 2022, many engaging part-time for supplemental income rather than full-time livelihoods.[91] These roles foster entrepreneurial flexibility but often yield low median earnings, with industry data indicating most distributors earn under $5,000 annually after expenses. Traditional retail, conversely, sustains formal wage employment for about 15.6 million in the U.S. as of 2023, offering benefits like health insurance and predictable hours, though subject to automation and e-commerce pressures.[92] Globally, traditional retail supports hundreds of millions of jobs tied to physical and digital infrastructure, contrasting direct selling's decentralized, commission-based model that prioritizes recruitment over sustained retail operations.[93] Operationally, direct selling achieves cost efficiencies by bypassing storefront leases, inventory storage, and intermediary markups, potentially lowering per-unit distribution expenses and enabling penetration into rural or low-density markets inaccessible to brick-and-mortar outlets.[18] A 2022 U.S. analysis derived an economic multiplier of 2.75 for direct selling, where each dollar in retail sales generates $2.75 in broader activity through supplier purchases, household spending, and taxes totaling $15.5 billion.[89][91] Traditional retail, while burdened by high fixed costs for real estate and staffing—often 20-30% of revenue—benefits from economies of scale in urban hubs and supply chains, with independent formats recirculating more local revenue than chains, yielding multipliers up to three times initial spending in community economies.[94] Overall, direct selling's lean structure supports modest, localized impacts but lacks the volume and infrastructure-driven multipliers of traditional retail, which anchors broader sectoral interdependence despite vulnerabilities to overhead inflation.[95]Prominent Companies and Product Focus
Leading Global Firms
Amway, headquartered in Ada, Michigan, USA, remains the world's largest direct selling company by revenue, reporting $7.7 billion in global sales for 2023, a 5% decline from 2022 primarily due to currency fluctuations and market challenges in key regions like China.[96] Founded in 1959 by Jay Van Andel and Richard DeVos, Amway operates in over 100 countries and territories, emphasizing nutrition, beauty, personal care, and home products distributed through independent business owners via multi-level structures.[97] Its Nutrilite brand, launched in 1934, accounts for a significant portion of sales, with nutritional supplements driving growth amid declining overall figures.[98] Natura &Co, based in Cajamar, Brazil, ranks among the top firms with consolidated net revenue of approximately $4.67 billion USD in 2023 (equivalent to 26.5 billion Brazilian reals), focusing on sustainable beauty and personal care products sold through a network of consultants.[99] Established in 1969, the company expanded globally through acquisitions like Avon in 2020 and Aesop, operating in cosmetics, fragrances, and wellness segments across Latin America, Europe, and Asia, with direct selling comprising the core of its model despite some retail diversification.[100] Herbalife Ltd., incorporated in the Cayman Islands with U.S. operations in Los Angeles, California, generated $5.06 billion in net sales for 2023, down 2.7% from the prior year, centered on weight management, nutrition, and personal care products marketed through distributors.[101] Founded in 1980 by Mark Hughes, it serves over 90 countries with a emphasis on meal replacement shakes and supplements, though it has encountered regulatory scrutiny over product claims and business practices in various markets.[102] Other prominent global players include Vorwerk (Germany), which reported around $2.9 billion in 2023 revenue from household appliances like the Kobold vacuum and Thermomix cooker via in-home demonstrations; Infinitus (China), achieving $2.8 billion primarily in health foods and traditional Chinese medicine; and Nu Skin Enterprises (USA), with $1.9 billion in sales of anti-aging skincare and wellness devices.[103] The following table summarizes the top direct selling firms by 2023 revenue, based on industry compilations adjusted for direct selling operations:| Rank | Company | Headquarters | 2023 Revenue (USD) | Primary Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amway | USA | $7.7 billion | Nutrition, home care |
| 2 | Herbalife | USA/Cayman | $5.06 billion | Nutrition, weight management |
| 3 | Natura &Co | Brazil | $4.67 billion | Beauty, personal care |
| 4 | Vorwerk | Germany | $2.9 billion | Appliances, kitchenware |
| 5 | Infinitus | China | $2.8 billion | Health supplements |