By understanding the basic concepts of the Matrix and the UniLevel you will see why I chose to cover these two plans together. The UniLevel is very similar to, and was obviously inspired by and evolved out of, the Matrix form. However, although these two plans look the same, the basic concepts are really quite different.

In this Matrix a distributor sponsoring more than five, for example, would "spill over" subsequent 'sponsorees' below their "front line". Some plans use the "spill over" to force fill the gaps in the Matrix while others are not structured in this way at all.

The idea of the Matrix is to build in a 'vested interest' or reason why distributors must continue to work with all of the individuals they sponsor! As you can see from studying the diagram if a sponsor isn't helping one of their five distributors then as much as 20% of their income could be lost. A fairly strong motivation wouldn't you say?

This plan is not only limited by width but, when it comes to 'payouts', also has certain depth restrictions. What do you think the first thought experienced MLMers had upon hearing this fact? "Won't that limit my income potential?" Not realistically. Diagram 2 shows the total possible number of distributors that could end up within the "payline" of a Matrix plan;

A 5 by 7 Matrix is 5 wide by 7 deep. The numbers represent the potential width of the levels if each person sponsors the maximum which is five. This plan pays a 7% override on each of 7 Levels.

As you can see there is a potential of almost 100,000 people that could end up within the paying portion of a distributor's downline! Significant is it not? Not what I would call limiting.

Most of the plans I've studied offer overrides on 5 or 6 levels. Because of the UniLevel's limitless width feature successful distributors can still be paid on the efforts of an unlimited number of downline. That means that theoretically the UniLevel doesn't necessarily have to pay as "deep" as the Matrix plan.

Diagram 3 and the chart show the depth and overrides paid in two typical UniLevel styles.

Each plan pays out the 48% in total but the two have adopted different strategies. Plan A pays 8% on each of 6 levels. Plan B pays less on the first 3 levels, more on next 3 levels and small 2 & 1% overrides on an extra 2 levels (see below).

Which of these two plans do you feel has the greater income potential? If you picked Plan B your right. With exponential growth, the lower levels potentially hold many more distributors. Therefore Plan B has the potential of paying higher percentages on greater numbers of downline distributors. In addition Plan B pays 2 and 1 percent overrides on two extra levels which, although these are small percentages, could be substantial.

Other 'payout' and general philosophies exist for both the UniLevel and the Matrix. By exploring why, we can gain a better understanding of these two different compensation plans.

In some Matrix plans bonuses are paid to those who have established themselves at different leadership positions. Why include these significant rewards in a Matrix? Because of width restrictions and low monthly quotas.

Matrix distributors who aren't building and continue to remain qualified by meeting the low monthly quota force their upline to work harder to fill the matrix. A "nick name" for this type of distributor is the "welfare MLMer" who is paid overrides for hardly working. In order to reward those who prove to be the real achievers the bonuses, which are the lion's share of the Matrix payout, are in the rear end. Leaders could be taken advantage of if it wasn't for this unique aspect of the Matrix plan. UniLevels don't have the same challenges because of unlimited front line width but they also don't include "vested interest".

Both plans are based on paying override percentages of sales on several levels with a low dollar volume quota or qualification. New distributors typically purchase as much as is required in order to qualify for any overrides that may accrue to them during their first month. How does this affect incomes which are actually earned in either style of plan?

Plan A and B both have a $50 per month override Qualifications.

In Plan A the override is 8% and the new distributor's sponsor would earn $4, $8, or $16 respectively for $50, $100 or $200 purchases. Very little money for the effort, wouldn't you say? Plan B pays 7% and would pay $3.50 or $7 respectively for $50 or $100 purchases. Any amount purchased over $100 is paid out to the purchasing distributor and not as an override to the network! Why? Because not only is there a minimum requirement for overrides but also a maximum!

The 'maximum' can be structured several different ways. With one system a distributor who retails more than $100 earn 100% of the override payments for additional purchases in that calendar month! A reasonable reward for the over achiever, don't you agree? And think about it, would you be inclined to retail an additional $100 over the quota if all you would receive is $7 for that extra effort?

In the same way purchases in excess of $100 made by a new distributor in their first month are 100% payable to the sponsor. Does that sound like a fair reward for the extra effort of sponsoring and training? New distributors may wish to purchase extra inventory in order to have enough samples for all of their prospective retail and distributor contacts. The purchase of start up inventory, in this style of plan, creates a well deserved bonus for the sponsor.

Most UniLevel plans I've seen are very straight forward and don't include back or rear end bonuses, although they could. The reason why simplicity may be considered an advantage lies in the ease of learning and duplicating the "presentation". There really isn't much to it and therefore you won't hear many stories of new distributors who "misunderstood the plan". In comparison the Binary is simple to explain to new comers but, unlike the UniLevel, has proven to be somewhat confusing to more experienced networkers.