Quantcast
Channel: A (MLM) Skeptic
Viewing all 572 articles
Browse latest View live

BREAKING NEWS: If You Got Net "Profit" of $1000 from Zeek, You Need to Contact the Receiver!

$
0
0
According to the settlements thus far, and statement from Zeek receiver Ken Bell's update to the court, if you own as little as $1000 (i.e. you're a "net winner" and you got $1000 or more profit from Zeek) you need to settle with the receiver or he's going to SUE you!

Yes, as little as $1000.

And indeed plenty of people have settled, usually at 60% rate, i.e. if you owe $1000, you may be able to settle for about $600.

Those still dreaming about getting away with their illicit gains can expect to sweat quite a bit more.



See updates at PatrickPretty.com

http://www.patrickpretty.com/2013/06/29/urgent-bulletin-moving-threshold-dollar-number-for-zeek-rewards-net-winners-now-public-at-least-136-settlement-agreements-ironed-out-receiver-says/


Enhanced by Zemanta

BREAKING NEWS: Brazilian News "Fantastico" Investigates TelexFree, finds suspicion of pyramid scheme

Woo in 2013: Some bogus images "proves" their product works? Nah.

$
0
0
Mr. Bogus
Is your product from Mr. Bogus?
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The problem with modern health is it's so complicated that modern charlatans moved in using pseudo-science, fancy jargon, and bogus advertising to claim their products work.

In 2004 or so there was a flood of so-called "foot bottom patches" allegedly from Japan. The claim was you apply these to the bottom of your feet at night, and when you wake up in the morning, you'll find the patches having turned dark, and that supposedly had leeched "toxins" from your body, thus proving it works. 

What utter bogosity. The patches actually turn dark to ANY moisture. Just drip a few drops of distilled water will make them turn dark. Tests of pads turned dark with distilled water vs. pads turned dark under actual feet, as well as unused pads were tested, absolutely NO difference in metal content was found. 

The claims were so bogus, FTC sued the makers of Kinoki pads and shut them down. They claim they didn't really make money and thus can't pay the FTC fines. 

And now the patches are back, with even MORE bogus claims than EVER. 

LifeWave claims to have patches for everything from weight loss to pain relief to energy enhancement to improve sleep. 

How do they work? According to themselves? These are quoted DIRECTLY from their own FAQ:


How do the patches work if nothing enters the body?
LifeWave patches are clinically proven to stimulate acupuncture points, ultimately improving the flow of energy in the body. No drugs, stimulants or needles are needed.


What is in the patches?
The patches contain a patent pending blend including amino acids, water, stabilized oxygen, and natural organic compounds. None of the materials in the patch enters the body.

The LifeWave Technology was born out of 3 years of intense research by David into the concept of being able to naturally increase energy and stamina through elevation of fat burning utilizing wireless communication to the human body. 
Wait, so "patent pending blend including amino acids, water, stablized oxygen, and natural organic compounds" was able to generate "wireless communications" which somehow affects human accupressure points?

Yet their research paper says that's EXACTLY what it does...
When any of the LifeWave patches are placed on the skin,
they safely transmit specific wavelengths of light to optimize
certain biological functions, such as pain control. These devices
have photonic and electrical properties. They are essentially a
passive, wireless nanotechnology that relies on non-toxic
organic crystals. The crystals absorb infrared frequencies (body
heat) in the range of 1000 - 20,000 nanometers and emit light in
the infrared and visible spectra back into the body
What utter bollocks!

First thing, folks... There is no SCIENTIFIC basis on accupuncture / accupressure. Accupuncture is NOT a Chinese word! It's invented by a FRENCH guy George Soulié de Morant, who also coined the term qi and meridian, in the beginning of 20th century!

And the claim that accupressure is 5000 years old? Bollocks. The FIRST mention of accupuncture in Chinese literature was dated back only 2000 years, maybe 2200 or so, but it's more likely no more than 1500 years old.

Lifewave head "Schmidt" claimed 1.8 billion in the world relies on accupuncture? Bollocks. There's only 1.34 billion people in China, and most of "traditional Chinese medicine" is HERBAL! In fact, for about 20+ years accupuncture was BANNED as "old supersitution" by Chairman Mao Tse Tung!

And how the **** does amino acids, water, stablized oxygen, and natural organic compounds" was able to generate "wireless communications" any way, much less able to influence accupressure points? Did he just create a chemical "power plant" of some sort where's the transmitter? (And the irony... LifeWave just started selling "Matrix 2" EM shields for your cellphones, when they claim their products *use* wireless communications to influence your body!)

So what proof do they have that this works? Three primary sources: holistic medicine studies (none of which have been replicated or peer-reviewed), celebrity athlete endorsements, some "thermal photos" proving the patches have somehow lowered temperature of the body after application.

Their most recent study, published in a Korean Journal, claimed that out of 30 some people who managed to finish the 5 day test, most reported some reduction in pain. However, there was NO placebo patch applied, with each individual acting as his or her control, and self-reporting, and thus, this test is mostly useless.

As for celebrity athlete endorsements, with plenty of photos of Olympic and professional athletes sporting what appears to be their patches...  What's really interesting is they have a letter from WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) proving their product does absolutely NOTHING, and thus is allowed to be used by professional athletes.

And finally, about those "thermal photos"? This one was found all over the web, supposedly "proving" that the patch had "cooled the body".



Pay particular attention to the two photos on the right... The top one, the "red" is set to 23.8 C, right? Now look at the bottom one. What's it set to? 28.8 C. Yep, they "moved the goal post" by redefining red to be a higher temperature, and thus, the entire picture LOOKS cooler. Also note that the body is a bit further away, and presumably the body had been at rest for a few minutes "for the patch to take effect", further cooling down the body. 

I can't explain the two on the left. Top picture was set to 24, the bottom was set to 23.7, and camera was moved slightly back. I suspect the pictures were taken minutes apart after sweat had been mopped off, but the fact is without timestamp and "single-take video" the pictures only create an IMPRESSION of something, not actual something. 

What utter bollocks. 

The thermal graphs were labelled "Mullens Joe 051305 1355"  which I assume to mean 2005 May 13th, 1:55 PM. I can't find a Joe Mullens (there's a famous hockey player Joe Mullen). As they are using C instead of F, this appears to be done somewhere NOT in the US or the UK (who'd be using F). 

If the REAL Joe Mullens care to step up and explain these pictures, I'd love to hear it. For now, I'd say the origin of these pictures are... questionable 

So what are we left with? 
  • Pseudo-science explanations (crystals in patches that absorbs body heat and sends light back somehow triggering accupressure points)
  • Endorsements that are not (a letter from WADA / USADA stating your product does NOTHING and thus is NOT banned is NOT an endorsement)
  • False citation of facts that plays to stereotype (accupuncture is NOT 5000 years old and NOT all of China use accupuncture)
  • False thermal graph claiming to be "proof" of their product in action (mis-labelled and false interpretation through false color calibration)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Ponzi Liar Gets Jail Sentenced Doubled by Judge

$
0
0
A fraudster who got people to hand over 1.5 million had promised to pay back most of it to get a reduced sentence. When it was found that the guy hadn't paid a single cent, but instead, was exclaiming to the media that "New York district attorney has terrorized my family and me for six months", the judge revoked his plea deal and sentenced him to DOUBLE his original sentence.  He's gonna get four to TWELVE years.

http://www.ponzitracker.com/main/2013/7/2/judge-doubles-ponzi-schemers-sentence-for-failure-to-pay-pre.html

TelexFree Location Lie: It's TVI Express All Over Again

$
0
0
It's interesting how the scams just repeating themselves, albeit with a different audience.

Recently, when the Brazilian courts issued an injunction / cease and desist order against TelexFree, the various Brazilian affiliates started touting that TelexFree is a US company with a dozen year history.

Here's one example:


Yes, the corp search is real, but you need to read the WHOLE history... Like there are TWO TelexFree companies...


So where is this first one? Type in the address given: 4705 S. DURANGE DR., #100-J51, LAS VEGAS, NV  89147  USA into Google, and you get a mini-mart with mailboxes:




#100 is the mini-mart, and J51 is the mailbox number inside. You can zoom in on the streetview and you can see the Beauty Store is #110, and to its right is #115. So there's no doubt Minimart is #100. This is just a mailbox. 



What about the other address?   225 CEDAR HILL ST SUITE 200, MARLBOROUGH, MA  01752  USA


This is even more deceptive. This is a VIRTUAL OFFICE provided by Regus. What's Regus? They rent office buildings and rent out offices, mailboxes, and "receptionists" by the hour or by the call. In other words, they let small companies look big and professional (and make scammers look legitimate). Here's their own webpage about this specific location:



Okay, you ask, but how do I know that this is a virtual office, as compared to business center, lounge, meeting room, etc. ?

By the suite number, of course. Suite 200 is the "default", the Regus office suite that they use for everybody who don't have a separate physical space. if TelexFree did have a actual office at that location, they would have gotten their own suite number, not the default 200.

In other words, here's the undeniable truth:

There is no real TelexFree office in the US. There are ONLY TWO MAILBOXES. 

That doesn't stop Brazilians from parading this photo of James Merrill standing in front of a building he probably doesn't even rent an office in though...


They rent ONE office, or even a VIRTUAL office, and they pretend they own the entire building.

That's fraud, folks. Just like TVI Express fans made up **** about how they're in London, and paraded the whole building that TVI Express just rent a mailbox out of.

What utter... bollocks.




TelexFree just gotten even more bizarre... to the observers

$
0
0
TelexFree claims to be a communciations provider (sells VOIP packages), but also offers "AdCentral", which is a clone of Ad Surf Daily "auto surf" ponzi. They were recently issued an injunction by court in Acre, Brazil to stop paying the recruiters.

And the TelexFree participants went absolutely bananas.

According to PatrickPretty.com, Brazilians are spamming all major Western media  Facebook presenses, including NBC, CBS, CNN, NYTimes, etc. claiming they are being persecuted.

Some even made Youtube Videos, which are rather entertaining, but hilarious when you consider their source:

  • One video used "cattle encircle to protect calf from lions" metaphor to tell judges to leave them alone, stealing the video from NatGeo in South Africa. 

  • Another guy walked into the virtual office (provided by Regus) of TelexFree in Massachussets, US, and pretend that the entire building works for TelexFree. As he's speaking Portuguese, nobody challenged him. 
  • Another video had a member cosplay as Rambo (with an LED lighted "weapons") claiming to defend democracy (i.e. TelexFree) and ask people to 'stand up for their rights'



This sort of denial behavior was well exhibited by various groups undergoing a psychosis after being scammed. 

In Colombia, when DMG Grupo went bust after David Murcia was arrested, people went on hunger strikes chanting "We believe in God and David Murcia"

In the US, believers in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi, 10 months later, still claimed "there were no victims until the government stepped in", something the Brazilians are claiming now as well. 

In India, some Speak Asia victims formed an "association" and actually tried to PAY OFF a victim who brought lawsuits against the scam, thinking it would help them get back their money. 

There's a Chinese idiom... Those in the scheme see nothing; those outside the scheme see clearly. 

And we're seeing plenty. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

MLM Mythbusting: Did Harvard Business School Really Develop 3 Criteria of Successful MLM Companies? (No, they did not!)

$
0
0
English: Harvard Business School
English: Harvard Business School (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Here's one of the most often repeated MLM myths: Harvard Business School teaches Network Marketing. That is a LIE. HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL DOES NOT TEACH Network Marketing, Multi-Level Marketing, or any such similar schemes.

MLMers who tries to legitimize the industry often repeat the claim that "network marketing is taught in 200 schools around the US, including Harvard Business School", and "HBS studied network marketing in detail and have developed a 3 item checklist to locate the successful ones."  Sometimes the list is also supplemented by a "4 stages of business success".

This is repeated ad infinitum by MLMers attempting to legitimate their own particular scheme, be in neutraceuticals and next uberfruit juice to woo bracelets and body wraps to... anything! In fact, search in Google for "Harvard Network Marketing" and you'll get bazillion hits. Okay, about 12 million hits. Almost all of them are lies.

Here's the honest truth:

There is only ONE SCHOOL in the US, that I know of, that offers a a degree in network marketing. It's a tiny little community college in Kansas called Bethany College. Technically it isn't even that. It's degree in marketing, with emphasis on network marketing.

(If you can cite another one, please show proof: magazine or newspaper article, school syllabus, etc.)

Harvard Business School (HBS) themselves are VERY TIRED of network marketers claiming something they do NOT do. In fact, if any MLM business claim so, it will very likely face a LAWSUIT from HBS, as this article (back in 1995!) had already busted. Quoting from the article:
 ``If the registrar's office had a dollar for every call we've had over the years over whether Harvard Business School teaches multilevel marketing or has studies on it, we could throw a very nice Christmas party,'' reads one internal business-school memo. ``This claim is harder to kill than a dandelion.''
What was once a nuisance now looks like grounds for potential defamation or libel lawsuits, says Frank J. Connors, a Harvard lawyer. Some handouts, for example, now claim _ falsely _ that Harvard has conducted ``extensive research in the network marketing industry,'' and that the business school calls multilevel marketing ``a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.''
Got that? REPEAT AFTER ME: 

Harvard Business School DOES NOT TEACH NETWORK MARKETING!

Okay, where did this came from? How did this nasty rumor got started? 

From a network marketer, of course. 

In 1984, a MLM consultant by the name of Beverly Nadler, published an article in Business Connections magazine (an obscure MLM industry magazine) that claimed the following:
Multi-level marketing (also known as MLM) has finally gained respectability. It is being taught in HarvardBusinessSchool, and both Stanford Research and the Wall Street Journal have stated that between 50% and 65% of all goods and services will be sold through multi-level methods by the 1990's. This is a multi-billion dollar in­dustry.
The source of her information was NEVER disclosed. Furthermore, Wall Street Journal has NEVER published such a statement that 50-65% of all goods and services will be sold by MLM by 1990's. This is very simple to check at the WSJ website. 
When contacted by AP reporter in 1995 for comment on the accuracy of her claim, she had no comment. However, according the AP, Nadler apparently admitted in her 1992 book "Congratulations, you lost your job" that she did not verify some information in her 1984 article

In other words, she made up the s***. 

But she's proud of her lie, since she still publishes it on her website, where she's proud that her lie was the most copied and read MLM article in the world for many many years, fooling millions of people. 

Oh, and she'll TRAIN you in MLM if you pay her. 

And NOBODY bothered verifying this information! (until 1995, when the AP reporter did so)

And the entire MLM industry had been living a lie... for 30 YEARS! 

Now that we have established that HBS does NOT teach network marketing, who really wrote that 3 item checklist that supposed was attributed to HBS? First, what does this list say? It says a good MLM company has 3 keys: 
  1. Must be older than 18 months (but younger than 4 years)
  2. Must have products that are unique and consumable
  3. Must be a "ground floor" opportunity (low number of distributors per capita)

This is often followed (but not always) by 3 or 4 phases of a successful MLM business (sometimes formulation is combined with concentration):
  • Formulation
  • Concentration
  • Momentum
  • Stability

In general these two lists were attributed to Harvard Business School. However, as we've shown, it was NOT from HBS. So, where did the two lists came from? 

One author attributed the 3 keys to Trump / Kiyosaki, who supposedly wrote an article (for what?) that seem to be a summary from "We Want You To Be Rich". However, searching that book using Amazon and Google showed NO references to such a list. 

Searching for the second list shows that it was excerpted from a book called "Wave 3: The New Era In Network Marketing" by Richard Poe. However, there was no sign of the first list in that book either. 

In fact, in every mention of that first list (in its various forms, with or without examples, with or without additional verbiage pitching thei rown stuff), it is almost ALWAYS mentioned with Harvard Business School (until recently, when someone decided to change it to "Harvard Business School did not write..." )

So I honestly can't tell WHO wrote the list where. The earliest mention I can find is from 1998, but that appears to be a comment spam, not a real article. The first reliable mention of the first list appears to date from 2001, where it was already attributed to Harvard Business School. 

The content seem to be cribbed from multiple sources though. And it's a lot of bogosity. 

1) Do most MLM business fail within 18 months? 

PROBABLY FALSE:  US Census data shows that 72% of business started in 1992 is still running in 1996. If MLM businesses fail within 18 months of launch, then it means it has an ABNORMALLY HIGH failure rate. 

2) Do you need unique and consumable products? 

PARTIAL TRUTH:  ANY business need a product, but consumability and uniqueness are NOT required. Commodities are not unqiue, and jewelry are not consumable, yet you will find both being sold through MLM. Consumable products has better chance of attracting repeat customers, but that's not unique to MLM. Uniqueness may allow the product to be sold at a higher price, thus higher profitability, but Amway has long pioneered selling everyday items for equivalent prices, and many other companies have followed. And uniqueness can be established through marketing a "brand name". 

3) Do you need to get in at "ground floor" opportunity? 

PARTIAL TRUTH: if a business can only make you prosper by getting in at 'ground level' instead of hard work, then it's not a fair business, is it? MLM often touts itself as being your own boss, where you work for yourself, not your boss. But if all your hard work is simply making your upline money (he gets to sit back and relax and let you do all the heavy lifting)  and the only difference between you and him is he got there first (i.e. joined at "ground floor")  is that really what MLM is all about? 

In conclusion, the lists are a mix of partial truths and lies, dressed up to legitimize network marketing through deception. 

Don't you repeat one of these myths. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

BREAKING NEWS: Brazil shuts down BBOM, another pyramid scheme (pretending to sell GPS trackers)


HYIP Pitchpeople Beware: Legisi HYIP Pitchman Gagnon got 5 years FEDERAL PRISON SENTENCE

$
0
0
It seems the Feds are really going after the criminals... Not just the ringleaders who start up the HYIP scams, but also their primary pitchmen (and pitchwomen).  Many of these HYIPs were created and ran out of Europe, but the US authorities can get their hands on the LOCAL perps... Such as Gagnon here, who pitched the Legisi HYIP (Ponzi) for all its worth, as well as ran his own scams.

Gagnon claimed to run an "internet income opportunity review website", but in actuality he colluded with McKnight's Legisi ponzi scheme and shared the profits, while giving Legisi a clean bill of health (when he clearly do not have such information to base his ratings on). Gagnon also is believed to have ran a Forex scam and a resort investment scam in addition to being a pitchman for Legisi ponzi.

Gagnon is now ordered to pay back 44.5 million in restitution, AS WELL as spend 5 years in a Federal prison.

So those people who think that the Feds only go after the Ponzi organizers... So you can PITCH the HYIPs in safety... Beware! The Feds may be after you next!

http://www.patrickpretty.com/2013/07/12/full-statement-of-sec-on-criminal-conviction-restitution-order-and-civil-liability-of-serial-hyip-ponzi-pitchman-matthew-j-gagnon/

Profitable Sunrise Pitchwoman Nanci Jo Fraser Charged by Ohio Attorney General as Fraud Front

$
0
0
According to PatrickPretty, com, citing multiple sources, Nanci Jo Fraser, who ran a "Focus Up Ministry", was charged by Ohio Attorney General for defrauding the public for her part in the Profitable Sunrise ponzi scheme. Full asset freeze was ordered.

This came 2 months after the Feds closed down Profitable Sunrise and froze its assets all over the globe (but most of that had disappeared/laundered).

Fraser, along with another pitchman Albert Rosebruck, were appearently head of this group that claimed to be a "Christian Enterprise" that recruited locals into contributing milions into this scheme, never disclosing she profited heavily from the recruitment.

Rosebruck had previously complained that it was the SEC that ruined everything (i.e. closed Profitable Sunrise), and Ohio alleged that Rosebruck was previously Ad Surf Daily ponzi and Zeek Rewards ponzi member. Indeed, "blame the SEC" was a position frequently advanced the more ardent Zeekheads who, to date, still refuse to admit Zeek is a Ponzi scheme.

Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Perhaps it's because they had a good thing going?

http://www.patrickpretty.com/2013/07/09/urgent-bulletin-moving-ohio-calls-nanci-jo-frazers-focus-up-ministries-front-for-profitable-sunrise-hyip-fraud-scheme-state-says-it-believes-frazer-was-an-adsurfdaily-pitchwoman-with-his/

Why You Cannot Treat Money With Rationality (and How to Fix It)

$
0
0
Lifehacker pointed out a TEDx presentation (kinda TED conference, but locally organized) where psychologist Daniel Crosby points out 4 biases that we share... and we have the same biases on finance AND love. That's why we behave toward both with irrational behavior.

The "I Can Change Them" (or "Fixer Upper") bias

Do you marry the person you love, thinking that you can change them, fix them up? You do the same with your money, investments, income opportunities, and the like.

Basically, you overestimate your power to compensate for the weaknesses of whatever your choice was. The person's bad habits? I can help him/her change that... maybe not. The business have a dark past? Don't worry about it, just worry about the future!  Hmmm... that may not help at all.

"This Time It's Different" Bias

Those who divorced are more likely to divorce again (and again). People believe "this one will be different", "this one will be the one". Unfortunately, this new one is probably just a rebound, and the problem that caused the original divorce was never found and fixed.

Same thing with money. Scam victims often fall for a reload scam, with the victims thinking "this one will be different", without considering what made the scam a scam. Just because there's something "new" mixed with this whatever doesn't make it new. This is called "new era thinking". Pyramid schemes have been around as old as money itself. HYIPs are the new pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes, except they operate online. eToys, the online equivalent of Toys R Us, had a bigger evaluation than Toys R Us, despite never earning a profit. It's a bubble fed by new era thinking. Scam victims often fall for the same thing... over and over.




"The Prince Charming" Bias

In romance, the deux ex machina ending is a Prince Charming saved the day, sweeps the heroine off her feet, solved all the problems, and they live happily ever after. People often expect the same in love... and money.

Just as in love, where you may think 'this one is "the one"', you will think of an income opportunity or a job or an investment as "the one" that will solve all your problems, even though the odds are highly against it. Furthermore, scammers are very good in keeping up appearances, and most people stop looking for faults when they see a check in their inbox (or in their friend's or neighbor's inbox), never mind that they are far from recovering what they put in.

"Just Can't Quit You" Bias

"Breaking up is hard to do", said the old song... the pain of separation often will cause people to stay in hurtful relationships far longer than they should have. Same with money situations. Even after realizing they have been involved in a scam, scam victims often will try to "work within the system", talk to management, upline, trying to "reform" the scam, without realizing that the deck had been stacked against everybody by the founders and there's nothing anyone can do to turn a scam into a legitimate business. Instead of getting out from a losing deal or a potential scam, they will ride it to the end, until assets are frozen by law enforcement and/or the founders disappear.

Watch the presentation yourself:

http://lifehacker.com/the-common-mistakes-you-make-in-both-money-and-love-754809696
Enhanced by Zemanta

BREAKING NEWS: Zeek Receivership will continue, despite some Winner's Attempt to Stop It

$
0
0
Trudy Gilmond and Kellie King, both net winners in the Zeek Rewards ponzi, had previously filed a motion to dissolve the receivership. The motion has been denied.

The only reason why they would file such a motion is so they don't have to pay back their ill-gotten gains, i.e. keep the net loser / victim's money. And now, they will have to (eventually, when receiver sue them).

http://www.patrickpretty.com/2013/07/23/urgent-bulletin-moving-federal-judge-denies-alleged-zeek-winners-motion-to-intervene-in-case-and-dissolve-receivership/

What Herbalife Apologists Are Ignoring (And You Shouldn't)

$
0
0
Warren Buffett speaking to a group of students...
Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway
owns Pampered Chef, a MLM. Is it comparable
to Herbalife though? (source:Wikipedia)
Hedge fund managers, being handlers of other people's money, tend to be very smart people, and usually very careful, but once decided, still do the Bush thing: "stay the course", based on their own analysis and their own criteria. And ever since Ackman started his "assault" on Herbalife at the end of 2012, the hedge fund managers have been divided on this issue, and roughly falls into three camps:
  • Ackman-camp: I agree with Ackman and Herbalife is going down... eventually
  • Icahn-camp: Ackman is wrong, Herbalife is NOT pyramid enough to be shut down!
  • Spectator-camp: I'm not getting between those two gorillas... or Godzillas.

Most articles you find on Herbalife nowadays are about stock movements, rather than about the company itself. If Herbalife stock goes up, people publish some opinions about how Ackman's losing and Icahn is winning, even though they don't really know how the company works. One such title is "Carl Icahn is Squeezing Bill Ackman to Death", leaving aside the "merits" of Ackman's case.

Everybody is guilty of confirmation bias and automatic cherry picking. People see facts that support their own side, and unconsciously ignore facts that does not. Even hedge fund managers. One of which is Bronte Capital's John Hempton, who has a nice blog. Recently, he published a blogpost that repeated his view that Herbalife is just misunderstood and some MLMs are very good.

It's a pretty long post, and mentions multiple MLMs, so I will summarize here. I understand I'm as guilty as anyone I'm accusing of potential bias, so feel free to read it and check it for yourself. But basically, his premise is that "MLMs don't sell products, they sell the value AROUND the products". His primary example is Pampered Chef MLM (owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet's company).  He claims that while Pampered Chef's cookware is overpriced, what they sell is not cookware, but cooking lessons and the entire lifestyle change around adopting cooking for oneself (instead of eating out).

Then he claimed that Herbalife's value, unlike Ackman's claim that Herbalife products are commodities, is actually the diet clubs and the distributors' relationship with the participants, and Ackman is "missing the point" about the whole thing.

Frankly, Mr. John Hempton himself is missing a few things, and this wasn't the first time he did so.


Mr. Hempton, soon after Ackman started his "assault" on Herbalife, decided to visit and see an Herbalife diet club for himself, and he believes that most of Herbalife's "value" are in these clubs.

The problem here is twofold:

1) Mr. Hempton looked at the present, but did not look at the past. And thus, missed the true source of the value he's attributing to the company. This is from my own comment(s) to the blogpost:
The problem with Mr. Hempton's conclusion is... Nutrition clubs was started in 2003 as sort of "demo party" by distributors in Mexico. It was NOT a corporate sanctioned sales method until it spread back to the US a few years later.
If we accept that Herbalife's main value is in the social support system that these nutrition clubs provide, then what was Herbalife doing for the 23 years PRIOR to 2003?
One more bit of info... Apparently these "nutritional clubs" are NOT allowed to use Herbalife logo on the outside, according to Bloomberg report:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-11/einhorn-damage-control-at-herbalife-with-nutrition-clubs-retail.html
Diet clubs are UNOFFICIAL but permitted sales method. It was NOT an official corporate endorsed method that all Herbalife affilites gets trained in. In fact, they are NOT even permitted to use the official logos. It didn't even exists before 2003, and it wasn't even invented by Herbalife corporate. This "additional value" around Herbalife that Mr. Hempton claimed exist was NOT created by Herbalife, and did not exist before 2003. Herbalife was founded in 1980. So what was it doing for 23 years?

Yes, Herbalife is doing great. It went public in 2004 at initial share price of $14. It's had a bit of ups and down, but is trading in the 45-50 range now. It dipped to the 20s when Ackman revealed his epic short. But have since climbed back. But that's still... missing the point.

For most of its history (more than 2/3rds), Herbalife was NOT operating diet clubs or had lifestyle lessons and such. That was a NEW phenomenon (10 years) at best. The affiliates may be giving some lifestyle lessons and such, but that is NOT a corporately trained function, unlike Pampered Chef, whose consultants *can* and *do* give cooking lessons and are trained to do so. Mary Kay and Avon sales ladies consult their clients on what's good for them because they know their products and can recommend / teach how to use them more effectively, and have training from corporate on how to do so.

Do Herbalife have training programs for its reps on how to operate diet clubs, and be lifestyle consultants? From the way it even forbids the clubs to use its logo, VERY UNLIKELY.

Hempton basically gave credit to where it was NOT due. 

2) According to Mr. Hempton that you're not buying the product, but rather the "extra stuff" that came with the product. That doesn't sound quite right.

The value from Pampered Chef, according to Mr. Hempton, is not the cookware, but the cooking lessons and inspiration that came with it (the cookware by itself is indeed overpriced).

The value from Herbalife, according to Mr. Hempton, is in its various diet clubs and its distributors / affiliates helping people achieve a proper lifestyle, not in the shakes and tea and whatnot.

Do you buy a mobile phone for the call tones available? Probably not.

Do you buy a car for free floor mats? Probably not.

Do you buy vegetables from supermarket just to get the free plastic bags? Probably not.

If you buy a product, the product's utility / effectiveness should be your PRIMARY concern. Any sort of training / lessons should only be to the extent of getting the maximum effectiveness out of the product. I can see Avon / Mary Kay consultants giving lessons on how to apply the stuff, thus justifying the higher prices.

But how the **** do you give lessons on preparing a diet shake and steeping diet tea? Do you actually need lessons for that? Do you go to a "diet club" to chat with other people and watch them drink the diet shakes while you drink yours?

Yes, I know I'm simplifying things a bit too much, but I'm trying to make a point.

Mr. Hempton went to an Herbalife diet club, and decided that's where Herbalife's value is.

Mr. Ackman looked at Herbalife's affiliate makeup, and decided it's a huge pyramid scheme.

NEITHER OF THEM ARE COMPLETELY RIGHT. Neither of them are completely wrong either.

THEY ARE BOTH GUILTY of looking at things through their own peep hole and not seeing stuff that contradicts their view.

Frankly, both are probably guilty of "Three Blind Men and an Elephant" problem.

But you know which side are people taking. The pro-MLMers are taking Hempton's side, and the cynics are taking Ackman's side.

As for myself... A critic, I'm glad to see that Herbalife has changed a lot of its ways, by firing / asking to leave some of the most abusive top recruiters (who operates lead generation companies, aggressively and deceptively recruit affiliates through "business opportunity kits", then sells the affiliates to other affiliates as downlines), but I am NOT convinced it's enough to stave off a FTC investigation, and there is a price it needs to pay for the sins it had already committed.
Enhanced by Zemanta

UNCONFIRMED: Is Brazilian Prosecutor Asking for US Cooperation to Shutdown TelexFree here too?

Why do Some MLMers expect other people to take them seriously, when they do NOT take other people seriously?

$
0
0
English: Different customer loyality cards (ai...
English: Different customer loyalty cards (airlines, car rental companies, hotels etc.) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In life, "fairness" is often expected. You do something for me, I do something for you.

So why is it different in the MLM world?

A common theme that often emerges in discussion of a particular opportunity's legality is the promoter wants you (the critic) and anybody else to take what they say seriously, while they discount everything YOU wrote/discussed/pointed out as utter garbage to be ignored. Indeed, much of this blog covers such excuses used by such promoters to dismiss criticisms.

Recently, the discussion was rehashed about the opportunity called Lyoness.

Lyoness is a strange hybrid of a shopping loyalty program where you can earn shopping credits (funded by merchant contributions based on your purchase and purchases of those you recruited). However, it also has this potentially illegal component where you can purchase account units (normally generated through shopping) directly, bypass all the shopping, and get money THAT way. Some MLM experts (not me, really) have pointed out this is basically a Ponzi scheme.

Troy Dooly published a blogpost on July 22nd 2013 titled"Lyoness America Violating Pyramid, Ponzi, Securities, and Business Opportunities regulations?"  And the **** really hit the fan. Mr. Dooly lost a bit of credibility when he practically endorsed the ponzi scheme Zeek Rewards, but he was willing to admit his mistakes and learned from it. Now, after being advised by one of his close friends and MLM analyst, he decided to put the information he got out there.

A month later, he was invited down to Miami to talk with Lyoness American leadership and legal counsel in what is pretty obviously a damage control spin attempt by Lyoness.

So what do Lyoness supporters have to say about Lyoness itself, while ignoring its critics?




Lyoness supporters almost always narrowed in on two themes:

  • It's a great shopping loyalty program! (Great, but nobody ever doubted that, not even the critics)
  • You don't *have* to buy any account units! (So why is it even allowed?)
Some will go on a bit of tangent and mention how many members, how many countries, how long it's been running (appeal to crowd, bandwagon fallacy, appeal to age), and so on, but so far, NONE can actually explain WHY would a shopping loyalty program would include a provision for BUYING your way up the shopper rank (more rewards) without doing any shopping. 

As this is not about the legality of Lyoness, I'll stop here, but if you choose to explore this topic further, you can read the discussion on Behindmlm 

My point is simple:

If you want people to treat you seriously, you have to treat others seriously, by understanding their arguments. If you don't, then you can't expect other people treat you seriously. 

Lyoness supporters have been repeating the same themes OVER AND OVER every few months when a new batch of supports discover the BehindMLM review, did not bother to read any of the points, and post a bunch of that they believe to be rebuttals, but only proves they didn't bother to read the points presented. 

They didn't treat the BehindMLM review seriously. 

Yet the critics (such as Oz and I, and M_Norway, and others) do treat their arguments seriously. We analyzed their arguments, pointed out logical flaws, inconsistencies with other known facts, and such problems. 

And usually we never heard back from them ever again. 

I am pretty sure we did not change their minds, but we treated them seriously. They did not treat us seriously. So they went somewhere else, where even if they don't treat people seriously, other people (who likely are not as critically thinking as we are) will treat them seriously. 

Which brings us back to yet another suspicious scheme supporter's general accusation: that the critics are "close minded" when it is them that are close minded.

Being open minded means taking other people's ideas seriously, consider its merits carefully, and choose to accept or discard it with proper reasoning. Being close minded means to reject other people's idea WITHOUT CONSIDERATION (think of some reason later is possible, i.e. post-hoc justification)

Critics who criticize an opportunity have studied the issues and explained their reasoning. The "defenders" who came in and choose to ignore the reasoning had not considered the critic's point of view in sufficient detail to understand the issues, yet they argue about it nonetheless.

Defenders who assumed they are right without even considering other people's viewpoints. THEY are close minded.

Yet it is often the defenders who call the critics "close minded"

Go look in a mirror. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Modelling Scam Works

Will John Peterson's Suicide Save Herbalife, or Doom it?

$
0
0
John Peterson, a Herbalife Millionaire who climbed his way (some say over his downlines' backs) to Herbalife "Founder's Cicle", the highest grade of salesperson rank possible, has just put a bullet in his own brain. Herbalife put out a press release calling it a tragic accident, but clearly, putting a bullet in one's brain while sitting in an old pickup is not an accident at all.

So who is John Peterson? As mentioned before, he's one of the top salesperson in Herbalife, claims to earn 3 million a year from commission, apparently brought Herbalife to Mexico (and from there backfilled into US Latino communities), and has properties in Brazil, Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. He's so rich, he had 3 kids, divorced his blonde trophy wife, and traded up to a Mexican bonita by the name of Fernanda.

His rise to top of Herbalife is a bit controversial, as he rose through one of this schemes called "Work from Home Inc." Basically, it's the same model that another Founder's Circle member "Shawn Dahl" used: create a recruiting firm, that sends out these "business opportunity kits" that is basically a teaser DVD for $50 (though you'll advertise it as $10, but only if you return it in 14 days). The DVD comes with a form you can fill out and send back and someone will call you to enroll you with their support system and take your money, which is usually DOUBLE what it normally costs to join Herbalife (the extra goes into his pocket for some lame webpage and some brochures), but that's only if you're really enthusiastic. If you're a bit hesitant or did not actually mail back the form yet, your name will be sold to someone who already joined and is eager to "buy leads".

Through this sort of borderline scheme (not quite a scam, but shady as heck) Peterson and Dahl and others clawed their way up the Herbalife affiliate human ladder to the very top, over other affiliates' backs, and is raking in the money to the tunes of millions per year, while the average Herbalife affiliate earns HUNDREDS per year (not counting expenses).

One then speculates what was would cause him to take his own life, and what effect would this have on Herbalife?



Herbalife, in an attempt to dodge the spotlight shined on it by Ackman and the FTC, has announced in April that it is banning all of the lead generation companies... which would include Peterson's firm and Dahl's firm. It is also reforming quite a few of its marketing practices to ensure it will comply with whatever FTC may throw at them.

This has created some severe backlash at the highest levels of affiliateship, esp. in Founder's Circle's elites. Shawn Dahl switched his company to recruit for Vemma instead, and Dahl took his downlines to a new company called Nutrie, which is basically a clone of Herbalife.  Another top affiliate, Anthony Powell, and Tonya MacDowall, took their downlines to Vemma. MacDowall publicly stated that Herbalife's new marketing policy had "handcuffed" her and her affiliates, and they re going to a company that has no such restrictions.

While it would be too much to state outright that Herbalife's decision to cut off Peterson's moneytree at the root (banning the lead selling business) is the cause of Peterson's suicide, it is very obviously a factor that would have some weight in whatever decision process that he used to arrive at the fateful action.

So how will this affect Herbalife? Will Peterson's "sacrifice" redeem Herbalife, or doom it to hell?

My vote is on redemption, but not a total redemption. There are still sins to be repaid.

----

One of the little known facts is Shawn Dahl's business model is NOT unique. In fact, his mother in law had operated the exact same model (with minor differences) in Canada, and was closed by Canadian authorities as a pyramid scheme. This was revealed by "The Verge". Dahl simply took the same thing south and replicated it.

Thus, one must wonder if Peterson had received word that he is the one getting investigated by the FTC as a pyramid scheme, not Herbalife. The fact that Herbalife is "cleaning house" should tell you that it considers itself vulnerable to FTC investigations should it continue to associate (or allowed to operate) such lead generation companies, which are essentially recruitment driven scam.

One must now wonder why didn't Peterson choose to adopt a wait-and-see attitude, spend the money on lawyers if need be, and basically fight until the bitter end, if there is one? It may not be that bad. It may just be an investigation.

Here's something for conspiracy theorists to chew on... Did Herbalife throw Peterson to the (FTC) wolves to save itself?

And if there's nothing to investigated on Peterson's end, and Dahl can easily run north of the border (and most of this marketing company is paperworked out of Barbados) that would leave FTC not much to work on. With the changes Herbalife already impelmented, it may be enough for the FTC to claim they did an investigation and didn't find enough to prosecute,

Herbalife did lose some affiliates but those can be regained. It will lose far more if FTC hit it with any sort of sanction.

So in essence, Peterson's death will "redeem" Herbalife somewhat / a lot.

Of course, it is also possible that Peterson had implemented some sort of failsafe MAD plan where his death will take down Herbalife by revealing some insider secrets that prove Herbalife had endorsed the lead generation companies and encouraged growth of such to fuel corporate growth and stock prices, thus proving a conspiracy to operate a pyramid scheme.

Unlikely though.  :)



Enhanced by Zemanta

Scammers Will Fake Anything and Everything

$
0
0
Let me show you this little "certificate" here, plastered all over the shady corners of the Internet called we critics call "the great fool pool", otherwise known as HYIP forums. HYIP, or "high yield investment programs", are basically Internet Ponzi schemes and/or ponzi/pyramid hybrid schemes where you are paid commission if you brought in people who pay into the program, and you get get extra money out of the program after X days, with promises of 1 to 2% interest per DAY.

Any way, here's the "certificate"

Notice anything wrong with it?

How about... Everything?




The border is generic "awards" border easily found on the Internet

The "seal" was overlaid later with Photoshop (tm). If you zoom in you can see the "light border" around the seal, indicating a "blending" effect.

The "purpose" of the shares is left extremely vague, indicating that this was never intended as a legal document. "Shares... in the above named company" Are we talking stocks or something else? It's NOT for just some random company to offer stocks for sale in the US without SEC registration, any way.

Articles of association is correct as only a few jurisdictions use "articles of incorporation". However, again, without the actual articles this is likely fake. And you certainly don't make one up over the Internet like this one.

The date and the ID number are generated by the computer, and those are clearly bogus. Date is real, but the ID number is likely fake. If you look online you can easily see that some other certificates have already reached a 9-digit number and is overflowing into the border itself. That would suggest the value of this company to be in the BILLIONS... and that is, frankly, bull****.   A far more likely scenario: the numbers are not consecutive.

Then there's the signature. The certificate was signed by a Rodney J Watson, so it claims.

Here's that signature by itself zoomed in 300%:



Notice something wrong? Yep... it does NOT say Rodney.

It actually says... R o b e r y    And the letter y's thickness does NOT match the first 5 letters.

As it turns out this fake is based on a real signature... Robert Gates' signature

Another Photoshop(tm) job.

EDIT: Oz over at BehindMLM decided to find out where the Y came from, and found this:



So what have we learned so far? Fake signature means this certificate ain't worth the bandwidth it was transmitted with. If you gave them $10 or whatever amount, good luck to you ever getting it back.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Will You Be The Greater Fool in MLM?

$
0
0
English: A Picture of a eBook Español: Foto de...
Sell eBooks to riches? Don't be so sure. It may be
Great Fool instead. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In the stock market there is this theory called "the greater fool" theory. Its believers state that many questionable stocks are worth buying, not because the stocks themselves are worth the price, but because s/he can convince a "greater fool" to buy them at an even higher price than they paid.

It seems quite a few shady businesses work the same way, esp. those that promise easy riches through selling eBooks and whatnot. One eBook author claimed she was sucked in by such a scheme, which promised easy money by selling eBooks. Turns out what she had to do was spam Craigslist with "income opportunity" ads just like the one that sucked her in (and those are flagged and removed as soon as they're found, so it's a constant cat and mouse game, as she had to constantly create new blogs, websites, URLs, capture pages, and disposable email addresses as they keep getting banned) just so that she can recruit other people to do the SAME THING. And what does she sell? The same thing that she "bought" from whoever sucked her in: an eBook that described and explained how to do what she's doing: spam the net to sell itself.

It's like a f***ing meme that won't die but should have long time ago. It self replicates, feeding on greed.

And a lot of MLMs that were recruitment heavy work the same way: by looking for "greater fools".


As explained many times before on this blog, Multi-level Marketing is about MARKETING a product or service. The term "multi-level" refers to how you get paid for doing things, but the fundamental activity is marketing (sales). Thus, any MLMer who talks about recruiting downlines and sign-up affiliates and stuff before they have a product or service to market, is, frankly, cart before the horse, doing it ass-backwards, so on and so forth. That doesn't stop some MLMers from going that route, because it is easier, and less ethical.

Which is easier:

a) Telling people they need to learn how to sell stuff, and talk to 10 people a day each and sell to at least 1 person a day on the merits of the products/service

or

b) Telling people they can make money by SELLING stuff, and talk to 10 people a day each and get at least one person to sign up on the merits of how they can get PAID by buying just enough to qualify to get paid, and look for OTHER people to join (just like you recruited him/her)

I think you'll overwhelmingly say (b), esp. in this sputtering economy. But that's just you looking for "the greater fool", isn't it? Much like that eBook author admitting that she was hoodwinked into looking for "greater fools" like she fell for it?

The Amway Safeguard Rules, with the "Ten Retail Sales" requirement, tries to ensure there is at least some retailing going on, but it may be a losing battle, because getting OTHER people to sell for you is MUCH easier than making the sales yourself.

But if everybody is trying to convince other people to join, who's going to sell ANYTHING?  Balancing the pressure to recruit against the need to sell had always been a fundamental dichotomy of MLM in general.  And I feel that many MLM businesses simply took the easy way out and did not try to promote retail sales by affiliates vs. "self-consumption" by affiliates, and sought to expand the market through recruiting more affiliates (who self-consumes) instead of more retail sales. This was discussed in one of my other articles: 5 fatal flaws of MLM, as flaw 2: conflict between active and passive income. 

The bottom line for you: does your desire for passive income (i.e. make money by finding other people who sell the stuff so you don't have to) inspire you to actually help your downlines make sales... or do you simply search for "the greater fool" and hope to clone yourself onto him/her, and hope s/he will go out and replicate the process?
Enhanced by Zemanta

REMINDER: FINAL DEADLINE to file ZeekRewards claims is September 5th, 2013!

$
0
0
If you believe ZeekRewards owe you money, you need to file your claim before September 5th, 2013! That's only 2 weeks left!

After that it's "lights out"!

Over 350 million of claims had been filed, according to the receiver. There should be more of you out there!

And for the net winners... Your time is running out too. Soon the receiver is going to SUE you all!
Viewing all 572 articles
Browse latest View live