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

More Bizarre TelexFree Affiliates In Brazil: TelexFree Ice Cream

$
0
0
What would you call this ice cream concoction?


The creator of this flavor in Rio Branco, Brazil, named it after "TelexFree", the embattled scheme alleged pyramid / Ponzi scheme (at least that's what the article seem to have implied).


Details are a bit sketchy, no mention of what ingredients are in this thing, but the inventor, a TelexFree member, claimed that he created this flavor in honor of Telexfree, stating "This is not pyramid scheme, neither is the company."

He also invited the judge(s) who ruled against the company to come and taste it and see for himself why the company TelexFree is not a pyramid scheme.

No word on whether the judge is taking up his offer for free ice cream.

(Thanks to PattrickPretty.com for spotting this "gem")
Enhanced by Zemanta

When Scientists are Skeptics, We All Win (Yes, this is Related to MLM, sort of)

$
0
0
Alan Sokal is a physicist that read the journals where his papers (and tons of other papers) are published, and wondered... Does someone actually read all that stuff? So he proceed to write the WORST paper he could possibly write. It's complete bull****, filled with buzzwords ("quantum gravity..." Ooooohhhhh! Aaaaahhhhhh!" )  but completely bull****. The paper was called "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", and it was submitted to a journal called "Social Text", an academic journal of postmoderncultural studies.

It got published in 1996. When Sokal revealed the whole paper is pure bull****, and he basically "trolled" that journal, the feedback was definitely mixed. Some are horrified at the "lack" of vigor the editors of the journal demonstrated. Others are angry at Sokal for ridiculing other "scientists". There's also question on what exactly is "postmodernacultural studies", and why would a physicist try to troll them, and so on. The whole thing was dubbed "Sokal Affair" and even has its own Wikipedia entry.

The point is a scientists was skeptical of something, and he built a test to test that something.

How many of you would be willing to do that, or have done that, and I mean really test it, not merely "I tried it, it works, I got paid"?

Alan Sokal just struck again, when he and some friends took apart two psychologists, Fredrickson and Losada, who attempted to apply Lorenz Equation (huh) to "positivity ratio", and how feeling too happy will lead to a happiness inversion (what?) when the positive emotion to negative emotion ratio reached the tipping point of 2.9013 (huh?)  Sokal, along with Nicholas Brown, and Harris Friedman basically destroyed that other paper for all of the various reasons, including bogus math, bad logic, and much more.

Now you say, what does *that* have to do with MLM? Ah, but you see, this "positivity ratio" was a popular topic among the various "motivational speakers" who often show up at MLM events to "inspire" the crowd, and it was simply never challenged (cited over 1000 times, according to Google Scholar).

So what exactly is this "Positivity Ratio", how motivational speakers are citing it, and why is it bull****?



The original paper on "positivity ratio", which is, of course, followed by a book, claims that you need to "balance" your positive thoughts with negative thoughts, and keep it at 3 to 1 ratio. If you let it go out of balance, your thoughts will "flip" and you'll start thinking all negative thoughts. (Well, roughly speaking). But if you keep the thoughts in check in that 3:1 ratio, then you can do amazing things.

Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3 to 1 Ratio That Will Change Your Life

2.9016 to be exact.

Wait, so this ratio is applicable to you and me?

Yep. To any individual, regardless of age, gender, race, income strata, and even to groups of arbitrary size. To five decimal places.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

And what proof is there of this ratio?
Huh?

You heard me. Fluid flow equation called Lorenz equations. The co-author, Losada, claimed to have found the equations to be actually applicable to human emotional ups and downs over time.

O RLY?

I'm not going to go into the details on how the 3 professors went through bit by bit the equations, which are themselves massive simplifications of fluid dynamics, is not applicable to human emotion, and any relations would be contrived and conicidental. You can read the paper yourself, but it's a long and boring PDF.

Instead, I'll just quote from the official response paper from Fredrickson herself, as Losada chose not to make a reply.
I’ve come to see sufficient reason to question the particular mathematical framework Losada and I adopted... My aim in this response article is not to defend Losada’s mathematical and conceptual work. Indeed, I have neither the expertise nor the insight to do so on my own. My aim, rather, is to update the empirical evidence for the value and nonlinearity of positivity ratios. 
Need a translator? What she said was "My partner's math is completely bogus. Just ignore him. I still think my ratio is real, and I have some sample cases to show you."

That folks, is the sound of "furious backpedaling".


Yet you can see plenty of happiness coaches touting the positivity ratio if you search for it online:


And here's another

There are many more, usually the positivity coaches who have absolutely no idea what's real and what's not who just retweet / repost anything that they think justifies "positivity".

There is no science behind positivity, folks.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hey Rippln, Dr. Seuss wants their game name back!

$
0
0
Rippln, the vaporware income opportunity, apparently finally made something real, as they announced that their game "Guessaroo", had been approved by iTunes store, and they are about to roll out their "Rippln Communicator".

Right now, I'm at the "I'll believe it when I see it, but that name "Guessaroo" sounded familiar...

Turns out it's from Dr. Seuss game... ALREADY IN ITUNES!


Stealing names from Dr. Seuss? What a Grinch you are, Rippln...


BREAKING NEWS: NY AG sues Trump and Trump University. Who's Next?

$
0
0
Donald Trump enters the Oscar De LA Renta Fash...
Donald Trump, who's getting sued
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
New York's Attorney General have just announced a lawsuit against Donald Trump and Trump University, alleging fraud. Attendees paid thousands for "real estate investment lessons" from instructors hand-picked by Trump himself, supposedly, though vast majority have yet to complete a single transaction, according to NYAG.

Trumps reaction is indignant, and he countered with allegations that NY AG is running an extortion scam on him, abusing his power of office to retaliate against Trump who apparently didn't donate enough to his campaign (elected in 2010).

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/NY-AG-sues-Trump-Trump-University-claims-fraud-4758939.php

Frankly, this is a very simple pattern of alleged fraud... And quite popular. Find a field. The field had to be complicated enough and variable enough that you can always pointed at a few success stories and say "it worked for them, you must be doing it wrong." Line up a bunch of "instructors", promote the heck out of the free seminars, celebrity would be great. Do a bunch of FREE seminars, but they're just teasers to sell the books and upsell them on $2500 special long seminars of dubious value.

Possibly applicable fields? Internet income, multi-level marketing, real estate, precious metal, forex, etc. Anything that involves making lots of money by doing little, that's for sure.


You can also going at this with graduated levels... Start offering FREE seminars... but they're just teasers for your full day seminars that cost $500. But the full day seminars are really just teasers for your full WEEKEND seminars that cost $2500.  Yes, I'm hinting toward some famous "Robert", whom I've mentioned him many times on this blog. He also co-wrote a book with Trump. Yes, THAT one.

Actually, this pattern would apply to a certain network headed by a "Dave" as well. Except that "free" thing costs $25 a month.

You can also cut the cycle short by self-promoting a book you wrote yourself (probably with a bit of help), where you claim to have made a fortune in that exotic field, and now you want to teach everybody to make money like you did... If they will buy your book and/or pay for your lessons. Come attend a FREE seminar? I think a certain "Dean" tried it this way.

Selling nothing for something, then upsell you to something more expensive... That's the mark of an excellent marketer... And borderline fraud. And from there, it's but a minor shuffle to full frontal fraud.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Zeek Winners May NOT Be Able to Dodge Receiver Lawsuit By Filing Bankruptcy

$
0
0
As the deadline to filing Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme claims draws to a close (you need to file before September 5th, 2013!)  the day of reckoning is getting closer for the net winners to cough up their "winnings" (it's not their money!) to avoid getting SUED by the receiver.

Thus far, it seems that vast majority of the winners believing they are untouchable, possibly on the advice of some "Zeek advocates", who, to this date, still maintained that Zeek is a real business, Burks is not a crook, and SEC stopped a good thing ("there was no victims until SEC stepped in") who we have covered before on this very blog, many of them either worked for Zeek, lied about Zeek ("we have evidence that will exonerate Zeek"), liked about SEC ("we heard that SEC doesn't really have a case"), and tried to silence its critics through the use of bogus takedown notices.

There's no doubt that many have adopted a wait and see attitude, as they believe they can always go for the ultimate endgame: bankruptcy. It seems at least one coupon in New Mexico have taken that route, albeit, not for Zeek, but a different Ponzi scheme. However, it's not that simple...


Jordan "Ponzitracker" Maglich brought us this little tale of a New Mexican couple declaring bankruptcy to dodge a clawback lawsuit. The wife apparently worked for the Ponzi schemer, and is a participant, and apparently received preferential payment before the whole thing ran out of money. So the bankruptcy trustee gathered all the transaction records and sued the people who got paid for the money paid out. This couple is getting sued for almost a million bucks, but they're just 1 of the 175 cases brought upon by the trustee, who sued both the couple's "business" (which received 300K+ from the Ponzi biz), as well as them individually. The business already lost its 300K lawsuit, while the other case against them individually is still pending, and the couple just declared that they'll file Chapter 7 bankruptcy to get away from the "sinister clawback litigation".

While this couple *may* be able to get away from losses with a bankruptcy, this is not a done deal, as there are substantial "means test" that need to be applied and accepted before any debts are discharged. Technically, a lawsuit to recover funds is not a debt... yet.

There's no doubt that many Zeek "winners" are contemplating bankruptcy to "keep" their winnings, to declare bankruptcy you have to pretty much laid bare your entire financial history to scrutiny, and it becomes a matter of public record. What will that do to your reputation?

And don't bother trying to HIDE the money by transfering them to your relatives, friends, or just plain hide it. It won't work. Financial foresic analysts will find them, then you'll be charged with contempt of court AND your bankruptcy thrown out.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Blind Men, Elephant, and MLM, Revisited

$
0
0
Previously, I've discussed how many scheme participants have evolved rather convenient holes in their logic, by insisting that their experience of the company, which by their admission is not a complete experience, proves the company is legitimate, like three blind men, depending on which part of the elephant they touch, describe the elephant in very different terms.

Here's a revisit, on a different type of selective blindness, that the belief that as long as the product or service is legitimate, then the company itself must be legitimate. This is often used by affiliates of a company being suspected or accused of being a product-based pyramid scheme.

8-ball pyramid scheme model.
8-ball pyramid scheme model. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A regular pyramid scheme is a pure exchange of money. You pay to join the pyramid at the bottom. Additional joinees push you up the levels. When you get the top you grab all the money gathered up and leave. No product was involved. This was also known as the "airplane game".  The wikipedia picture on the right shows the 8-ball version, which has captain, co-pilots, crew, and passengers.

So what is a product-based pyramid scheme? A product-based pyramid scheme is a regular pyramid scheme that was disguised by purchases of products or services. However, to explain that, we have to discuss the definition of pyramid scheme, i.e. the Koscot Test.




Koscot Test was created when FTC sued Glenn W. Turner's "Koscot Interplanetary", an fancy named cosmetics company, and won, resulting in the "Koscot Test", which is described below:

  1. The participant makes a payment of money to the company;
  2. In exchange, the participant receives the right to sell a product (or service);
  3. In exchange, the participant receives compensation for recruiting others into the program;
  4. The compensation is unrelated to the sale of products (or services) to the ultimate user.
If a business fits all four parts of the test, then it is a pyramid scheme. 

A year later, FTC sued Amway, who eventually convinced FTC that it does NOT fit test (4): that the compensation is directly related to sale of products (or services) to the ultimate user, and thus is it not a pyramid scheme. After asking for a few bits of reform, known as the Amway Safeguard Rules, FTC relented, thus establishing the difference between Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid scheme (that one little difference on test 4). 

So what does this have to do with Product-Based Pyramid? A product based pyramid mixes recruiting and purchase, by combining the two with "starter kit" (which all new members should/must purchase), and by fudging the definition of "ultimate user" through "self-consumption". Basically, if you join a product based pyramid scheme, you are requested to buy a large starter kit and monthly autoship (to yourself), and instead of selling the items (or service) to people who need them, you are requested to find MORE people like yourself... who also buy starter kits and subscribe to autoship. And you get paid when enough people like that have joined under you. 

Test 4 is clearly meant to establish that there are actual sales to real retail customers, rather than the affiliates buying the stuff in hopes of qualifying oneself for commission. Thus, a large "starter kit" and attempting to formalize "self consumption" are clearly attempts to "end-run" the test 4, violating the spirit of the law if not the letter.  This has the effect of creating something that ostensibly does NOT fit the 4-step test, yet is still effectively a pyramid scheme. 

By asking the members to buy starter kits, and/or to subscribe to autoship, the shipments can be counted as "sales", esp. if sales to affiliates themselves are counted (i.e. "self-consumption"). One can ostensibly qualify for multi-level commission without having a single product sold via retail by merely recruiting a lot of self-consumers. Thus, members are expected to pay into the scheme (i.e. buy starter kit and subscribe to autoship), and get money out when s/he has sufficient downlines who also pay into the scheme (i.e. buy starter kit and subscribe to autoship). There's no doubt that this is a pyramid scheme, albeit products have taken place of money. 

I am probably boring you with all these court cases, so here's my point I'm trying to make: the product itself is actually quite irrelevant. A company can have a proper product, (apparently) reward people for selling them, yet still operate as a pyramid scheme. 

While most pyramid schemes are disguised with bogus products with minimal value, some suspected pyramid schemes, like Herbalife, essentially operates as a product-based pyramids scheme as described above. Herbalife has real products, not woo, and is apparently paying the people based on sales... but is it a product based pyramid scheme?

We'll discuss that next blog post. 



Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Zeek Rewards Was Such a Successful Scam

$
0
0
Magic ball toss
Magic ball toss (Photo credit: backofthenapkin)
Zeek Rewards Ponzi, closed by SEC last year, is the largest Ponzi scheme in the US, involving up to 2 million victims (due to some people having multiple accounts, the actual number is closer to 1 million) for 700 million dollars. How did it get so big? Don't people care about the warning signs? Are they all so blind? These aren't the smartest people in the world (we are talking the average Joes, not the elites like those Madoff soaked) but surely there are SOME smart people in that million victims?

It is a combination of factors, and it had everything to do with psychology, by taking advantage of your cognitive biases.

Your brain, due to millions of years of evolution, tends to form thoughts in certain ways, and a successful scammer can take advantage of that.

Think about magic. A lot of magic relies on misdirection. The magician tosses the ball up and down, up and down, followed it with his eyes. Then he tossed the ball up... and it vanished.

No it didn't. He didn't actually throw the ball up, but his eyes went up as if he did. And you, expecting him to do the same thing again, didn't actually look at his hand with the ball.

In other words, you were "trained" by the magician to follow his eyes, not the ball itself, so you were amazed at the ball vanishing into the air... when it never left his hand.

Zeek did the exact same thing... It showed the victims enough of a legitimate business that the victims never bothered to follow the IMPORANT item... the money.

Is it any wonder that Paul Burks, head of Zeek, is a trained magician? 

But wait, there is more!



Some of the most ardent defenders of Zeek, even today, maintains that they have EARNED their money through those ads they placed, when logically those ads are worthless. ( Two reasons: 1) The links does not seem to drive up Alexa ratings, and 2) You can easily hire some third-world kids online to post those ads for pennies ) So why are they so adamant in believing they were working for their money? Turns out, it is "in our nature". 

Psychologist Daniel Ariely, in his book "Upside of Irrationality", explained that mammals, esp. humans, have an innate need to "work for reward and recognition". Indeed, all animals seem to (except cats, but that's a different problem). This phenomenon is called "contrafreeloading", and it was discovered by zookeepers whose animals apparently got very bored and either self-mutilate or just go depressed and die.  Thus, zookeepers and animal psychologists coined this term "contrafreeloading". Instead of merely feeding the animals, not needing them to do anything to earn food (i.e. freeloading), they make the animals do certain activities that will challenge their brain somewhat, such as hiding food inside some mechanisms that need to be manipulated to release the food. 

When the experiment was done to lab mice, who were trained to choose between a lever that dispenses food pellets one at a time, and a cup full of food pellets, mice generally do half and half: push lever for food half the time, and pick up free (no work) food half the time, even when logically it should have only went for the free food (no work needed).  (a few out of 200 did like freeloading though)

Humans act very similar. Humans don't want PURE handouts, but the job better not be too difficult either. Remember the stories about people in Great Depression don't get pure handouts? That teams supposedly dug trenches one day, then filled them back the next day? People need to feel they did something to earn that money. 

That's why Zeek Ponzi's "post ads for profit share" disguise worked so well... It made all the victims feel they were doing something. Zeek could have easily left that component out, and just say "just buy the bids and share in our daily profits". But that would make it look REALLY like a Ponzi scheme. By adding this "busy work", Zeek managed to make all the victims feel they *earned* their money, when the truth is what they did was equivalent of a drop in the ocean. 

This also has a couple effects, all of which helped Zeek perpetuate itself. One of them is known as the Ikea effect, coined by Dan Ariely and his colleagues. Ikea effect basically points out that once you had a hand in the project, you feel "ownership" to it, and thus you will really defend it no matter how lacking in merit your position is (much like you really like the Ikea furniture you put together, no matter how crooked and unfinished it is). By involving you in that worthless ad posting, Zeek managed to hit you with the Ikea Effect, making you feel that you "own a business", and as a result, you felt obligated to defend it against the critics, and perhaps, even convince yourself NOT to pay attention to the doubts gnawing you in the back of your mind.

But what if you did pay attention to the doubts? Next thing to hit you is known as the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Human being have a cognitive bias in that once we decided on something, it will generally take a lot of effort to change course, esp. if we have something "at stake", such as "potential income" promised by a scam. Humans are naturally "loss averse", in that we don't believe in "giving up" something, even in exchange to gain something. Scammers generally have to lie quite convincingly to entice victims to give up their money for huge potential gains. Once the victims see the "potential gains" (even if it's just some numbers on a computer screen) he felt he owns that money ("Ikea effect") and refuse to consider losing it even though he doesn't actually own it yet. They already spent money (sunk cost) buying those worthless bids, and they feel they have to at least stay in it long enough to attempt to recoup that initial investment, and maybe even to the potential gains. 

Such "Ikea effect" of ownership would also explain why these victims, even today, persist in their belief that SEC broke up a real business. They felt they own that money when it's clearly other people's money. 

Which brings us to one more public service announcement... You only have a few days left to file your Zeek Rewards ponzi victim claim. Deadline is September 5th, 2013. 

And if you are one of those net winners... Settle with the receiver soon, or else expect to see subpoenas and/or court judgements ordering you to pay up. 


Enhanced by Zemanta

Genre Analysis: The Hilarity of Carbon Credit MLMs

$
0
0
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate...
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Genre Analysis is my personal opinion on a particular genre of network marketing, like MLM + penny auction, or MLM + daily deals, and so on.  

You can mix MLM with almost any business that needs a lot of consumer-level marketing, In the past several years, there has been some attempt to create multi-level "carbon credit" MLMs. So what exactly is a carbon credit? 

A carbon credit refers to any sort of trade-able certificate that permits the emission of one ton of CO2 or any equivalent greenhouse gas. Now you're probably going... Why would ANYBODY want to buy that? Good question! To understand that, we have to take a sidetrip to discuss global warming. 

Basically, the globe is warming (how much and how fast is subject to some debate) due to all the carbon emissions we're putting into the air from all the fossil fuel we've been burning. And the warming ocean is not good for us in the long run, so United Nations created a framework in 1997 called UNFCCC which established a global quota on how much carbon emissions is allowed for each country. This was signed in Kyoto, Japan, so it's known as the Kyoto Protocol. 192 different states signed, and it was formally adopted in 2005 by the UN at Montreal (see logo above). 

What's significant is while US representative signed the treaty, Congress never ratified it, so this protocol is NOT binding on the US. (i.e. US has no requirement to follow the quota given)  Canada withdrew from the protocol in 2012, and many nations that had was committed to first period (2008 to 2012) stated that they have no intention to continue onto second period (2013 to 2020). So basically this thing is dead in the water, and may sink altogether. 

That doesn't prevent some hucksters from selling you some carbon credits though. 



The way carbon credit is supposed to work is by spreading out the carbon quota, the industrialized nations willl not have enough, and will have to 1) spend money on researching green energy and reduce their emissions, and/or 2) spend money on buying quota given to countries that won't use them, like many third-world countries. This is known as the "carbon offset". Theoretically a nation (or companies within a nation) can reduce their carbon emissions so much that they can sell off their own excess, but that's more theoretical. 

The carbon credit market relies on the latter: trading credits between nations. Though none of that actually happens. What happens is some sort of initiative buys up the carbon credits for pennies per ton from the third world nations who probably has no idea what it is, only that they're getting some money for not doing anything. Then they resell the carbon credit to companies that need them. 

So how does such a thing work? Good question. There is no global unified market for carbon credits. Some programs are registered with the UNFCCC, and there are "boards" that approve various projects and such all over the world, but there's no unifying standard of carbon credit trading. 

In the US.multiple "initiatives" are operated by various official cap-and-trade programs operated by local authorities. Participation is voluntary unless state has its own cap-and-trade system in place.  California has one that operates in multiple western states.

Fraud in carbon credit is rampant. As a company can get credit for reducing their own emissions, some are known to intentionally pollute before the audit, found to need a high carbon cap, then tune the machinery to maximum efficiency, thus gaining vast amount of carbon credits to be sold. Other ways to defraud is simply outsource or outright move manufacturing to areas not covered by the cap-and-trade carbon credit system. Or perhaps a company can simply *claim* they have carbon credits for sale when they don't. Is there a way to VERIFY the carbon credits they have? Hmmm? (some carbon credits can be verified though, but it's not universal)

Okay, let's assume that the credits are real (may be quite rare). How does a carbon credit MLM work?

Generally, a carbon credit MLM claim to operate as more of a buying club, but in reality, they operate closer to a Ponzi scheme or unregistered (and therefore illegal) investment, in that you can purchase the right to buy carbon credits to be resold for huge profit later. They act as agent or reseller of carbon credit, and help you to sell it to someone else. The multi-level part is for you to bring in more people who also want to buy carbon credits.

Some somewhat more legitimate carbon credit MLMs start their own initiatives or carbon offset programs such as planting trees in third-world countries. However, it's unknown how one could verify / audit such.

Frankly, the authenticity of such programs are always in question, as there is no global or even regional authority to certify that the carbon offset project is genuine or generating real carbon credits. There are various attempts to certify and audit such, but frankly, that's just more bureaucracy on top of a shady thing that's dead in the water.

So where does that leave you? Or moreover, the carbon credit MLM?

As stated before, there really is no such thing as a carbon credit central authority that handles carbon credit trading. Thus, any sort of MLM that lets you invest in such is, at best, questionable, and whether they are profitable or not is even MORE questionsable. You probably get a "feel good" feeling from putting money into such and if you make money from it even better, but is there really such margins? Much less to support MLM payout?

And how do you know you're investing in a real initiative, when it could have been fake? How would you even know which is real and which is fake?

And yes, there are FAKE ones. UK just killed one earlier in 2013, and Interpol has issued a warning that criminals are now targeting carbon trading schemes.

The profits are dubious, there's no standard or law, and criminals have already infiltrated it.

DO NOT GET INVOLVED
Enhanced by Zemanta

What is a Product Based Pyramid Scheme? Is Herbalife a Product Based Pyramid Scheme?

$
0
0
Editor's Note: This is a continuation of a previous discussion about Product Based Pyramid Schemes. You may want to read that one first. 

Is Herbalife a product-based Pyramid Scheme? First, let us do a quick recap of what is a pyramid scheme, and its variant, a product-based pyramid scheme.

In a regular pyramid scheme, you pay to join the scheme, which buys you the right to recruit additional members into the scheme, and when you meet some recruiting requirements, you get paid.

In a multi-level marketing scheme, you pay very minimal cost to join the scheme, which buys you the right to sell the products as an affiliate, as well as the right to recruit additional members into the scheme. You get paid by the company when additional members you recruited i.e. downlines, also sell the products with their own markup.

In a product-based pyramid scheme, you pay for a starter kit to join the scheme, which buys you the right to sell the products as an affiliate, as well as the right to recruit additional members into the scheme. You also sign up for monthly autoship to qualify for commission payout. You get paid commission by the company when those additional members you recruited (i.e. downlines) buy a starter kit and signup for autoship, and they can also profit by recruiting additional downlines (that also buy starter kit and monthly autoship) just like you did.

Are you confused yet? Does the product-based pyramids scheme look JUST like a multi-level marketing scheme? There is a pretty subtle difference, but they are VERY similar.

Going back to regular pyramid scheme, the formal definition was:

  1. The participant makes a payment of money to the company;
  2. In exchange, the participant receives the right to sell a product (or service);
  3. In exchange, the participant receives compensation for recruiting others into the program;
  4. The compensation is unrelated to the sale of products (or services) to the ultimate user.

Please note that multi-level marketing scheme fits 1, 2, and 3, but not 4, in that the compensation from the company to affiliate is based on SALE OF PRODUCTS (by downlines, presumably to real consumers), not by recruiting additional downline affiliates.

The product-based pyramid scheme looks just like a multi-level marketing scheme in that the company can claim it has sold products to / through the affiliates, thus it has paid the affiliates based on SALES of products, even though the company is essentially a pyramid scheme with the product purchases replacing the direct transfer of money.

So how do you separate product based pyramid scheme from multi-level marketing scheme (i.e. illegal vs. legal), and which one describes Herbalife?




The Federal Courts actually recognized the rise of product-based pyramid scheme back in 1996, in a case known as Webster vs. Omnitrition. In what became known as the "Omnitrition Case", Ninth Circuit Court added a clarification on what constitutes "ultimate user" and what constitutes "sale". In short, Ninth Circuit ruled that "ultimate user" cannot be a participant in the company compensation plan. Sales to participant of the compensation plan cannot be counted as "retail sales" to satisfy test 4 of the Koscot test shown above.

In other words, "personal consumption" does NOT qualify for commission.

Ninth Circuit ruled this way due to the way Omnitrition operated. Basically, Omnitrition sells vitamins. To qualify oneself for multi-level commissions (i.e. receive commission based on downline's "sales") one must buy $1000 worth of products in 2 consecutive months. That will qualify oneself to be "supervisor- bronze" and receive MLM commission. There was no retail requirements. Indeed, the company itself had apparently suggested that the affiliate simply buy $1000 of products every month and give them away to stay qualified. This basically indicated to the court that the product is irrelevant, only that affiliate pay $1000 to the company every month so that it can qualify to divvy up the money from his/her downlines. That made it a pyramid scheme, even though there appears to be "sales" of products and the structure apparently does not fit the definition of pyramid scheme as per the Koscot test. Additional clarification was required to eliminate this loophole.

Self-consumption, when viewed by itself, in isolation, makes perfect sense. If I want to sell to myself, and I consume the product myself, then it's sales, right? However, when you view it in terms of the Koscot test, self-consumption only makes sense when it is of very limited quantity that can reasonably be consumed by an ultimate user. Just to take Omnitrition for example, can one person consume $1000 dollars of vitamins in a month? I surely hope not! It's clear that asking affiliates to buy up $1000 of vitamins, and chalk it up as self-consumption (or even promotional expense) is crazy. A typical monthly dose is maybe $100? That sounds reasonable, so an affiliate have to sell $900, like $100 to 9 different non-members, to qualify for commission. That seem fair, right? Indeed, that was a part of the Amway Safeguard Rules.

But what about Herbalife? Is it a product based pyramid scheme or not? Ah, that's the big question.

Herbalife shows all the warning signs of a product-based pyramid scheme, which is VERY VERY close to a multi-level marketing scheme. The main problem right now for Herbalife is it CANNOT prove itself to be NOT a product-based pyramid scheme. It has NO DATA TO EXONERATE ITSELF. Why? Because right now it operates VERY MUCH LIKE OMNITRITION when Ninth Circuit ruled.

Just like Omnitrition, the lowest level affiliates in Herbalife are NOT qualified to get multi-level commissions.

Just like Omnitrition, the lowest level affiliates in Herbalife gets a discount on the products (25% for Herbalife, 20% for Omnitrition)

Just like Omnitrition, affiliates in Herbalife need to meet a certain sales target to qualify for multi-level commission (coincidentally, the minimal rank for such in both is the "supervisor")
NOTE: Herbalife has one lower level, known as "Qualified Producer", that qualifies for ONE level downline sales commission. To get more than one level's commission, you need go Supervisor.

Just like Omnitrition, affiliates in Herbalife qualify for Supervisor with a pretty hefty volume purchase ($1000 for 2 consecutive months in Omnitrition, 2500 Volume Points for 2 consecutive months in Herbalife)
NOTE: Herbalife's volume points can be satisfied through combination of personal volume and "Team" volume so it's not a direct comparison

Wow, you say, so Herbalife is a product-based pyramid scheme?

Hold on there, no, I didn't say that. I said Herbalife could not prove it wasn't.

Remember, the additional criteria imposed by the Ninth Circuit, that only real "retail sales", i.e. sales to people NOT in the comp plan should be counted for commission?

So is sales to a regular distributor, lowest rank, counted for commission or not? Are they in the comp plan or not? And this is where the confusion reigned.

Bill Ackman, in his Pershing Capital December 2012 presentation, stated that the distributors are definitely IN the comp plan (and even referenced the Ominitrition case a few times), and thus there were only minimal sales of Herbalife products to people outside the comp plan, thus the whole thing is a pyramid scheme... a product-based pyramid scheme.

Defenders of Herbalife, namely John Hempton of Bronte Capital (rival of Ackman) and later, Carl Icahn, disagreed with Ackman and agreed with Herbalife CEO Johnson, saying "No so fast, those distributors just joined for that 25% discount. They are members of diet clubs. They are really retail customers! "

Which side do you believe?

In this case, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The question basically hinges on, how many of those distributors, at the lowest level, are REALLY there for the products (i.e. the 25% discount), and how many are hoping to recruit additional downlines and thus rise up the ranks and make $$$$?  Which is the majority?

If majority are here for the discount, then Herbalife is a MLM selling stuff and it just needs to reclassify these "customers" as actual customers and remove them from the comp plan.

If majority are here to hopefully recruit downlines and thus rise up the ranks and make $$$, then Herbalife is a product-based pyramid scheme and deserves to be shut down.

Ah, but you say, that's simple, let's survey all the distributors. That'll tell us for sure.

Not so fast. How do you count the "have the cake and eat it too people"? I.e. I like the product, but I want to make money too? And how do you account for the liars, which would include both the self-conscious liars (who knows they are lying) and those lying to themselves?

But some data is better than no data, right? Wrong. Some data is WORSE than no data. Herbalife did such a survey in January 2013, in response to Ackman's accusations. Unfortunately it asked all the wrong questions, as it tried to portray itself as positively as possible.

In that survey, it claimed that 71% of distributors recruited no one and thus is self-consumer or retail only, 12% earned some "wholesale" commission in addition to retail and self-consumption, and the remaining 17% are true multi-level distributors earning commission a various downlines as well as retail and self-consumption.

As you see, it did not answer the real question: how many distributors are really consumers, and how many are just biding time and trying to recruit downlines?

Clearly, the number of distributors that are consumers is LESS than 71%, but how much less? For the purpose of simplicity, let's just draw the line at 50%.

If more than 50% of the sales are to customers (including these "misclassified" distributors) then it's MLM.

If less than 50% of sales are to customers then it's product-based pyramid scheme.

So how will we know? That answer depends on Herbalife itself, and how honest it is to itself.

On July 30th, Herbalife CEO Johnson said that it will rename "distributors" to "customers" to better reflect reality that they just want the discounts. While this somewhat addresses the problem, and I look forward to seeing the actual numbers, this may also be merely an attempt to dodge the issue by a simple rename, i.e. change the bottle, not the wine.

As explained above, the real difference between PBPS and MLM is why did the people join? Do they expect income by resale and eventually downline commission? Or they just want the products for consumption? Merely renaming "distributor" to "member" doesn't show us the difference between the two types of people. An actual change in the rules does.

A member, as "ultimate consumer", should be OUTSIDE the comp plan altogether.

A member should NOT be allowed to retail the product at all. He is, after all, a consumer, and if he wants his money back he can pursue a refund. If he retails, he's clearly a distributor, not a consumer.

A member should not be allowed to recruit downlines either. And clearly, members should NOT be counted as downlines to distributors (or supervisor, or whatever).

Indeed, many MLM companies already have a "preferred customer" class, where they can subscribe to autoship, enjoys a nice discount, but NOT participating in comp plan. If they want to join as affiliate, that's a separate issue and has separate application fee. Joining as customer should be FREE.

Without more details on this "renaming", and some way to figure out how many of these "members" are really in as customer, there's no way to tell whether Herbalife's latest effort to combat Ackman's accusation is a genuine attempt to separate itself from product-based pyramid scheme, or merely an attempt to whitewash itself to disguise the scam underneath. 

And the ball had been in Herbalife's court for EIGHT MONTHS. (More like 33 years, but let's start with Ackman's accusations)

What are they waiting for?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bad Argument: If you look for negative stuff, you'll find it

$
0
0
Recently, I was reminded of another variant of negativity avoidance, when defender of a suspicious scheme used what I called "if you look for it, you'll find it" excuse. Except in this case, he was referring to "negativity". It goes roughly like this:

A: We found X, Y, and Z about this opportunity that raises questions about its legitimacy. How do you explain it?
B: If you go look for negativity you will find it.

This is a complete non-sequitur. It means nothing.

The defender (B) clearly is trying to imply that you can dig up negative information on anybody if you look hard enough, thus the negative information are of no consequence. This is basically to cover up his lack of counter-argument, but to get in "the last word" any way. Yet he said it in a way to imply a deeper meaning, in a way trying to imply that his opponents are vindictive and he's the magnanimous one.

Pithy, but worthless advice. Actually, it's the WRONG advice. Let me explain why.




With advent of Internet Search Engines like Google, Bing, and such, you can find information on almost anything, both positive AND negative. However, there is a difference:

Scammers do not show you negative information about their scheme. They may show you some negative information about OTHER things, and present their scheme as the solution. Then they'll show you all the positive things they have to support the scheme (many of them documented here as bad arguments, like "association with authority", "appeal to age", and so on).

In other words, positive information comes to you.

Negative information? That you need to do yourself. It's a part of due diligence. You NEED negative information to get a full understanding of the situation.

Thus, you *should* go out and look for such "negativity", as I pointed out before. Any one telling you not to actually wants you to be reckless, not motivated.

And that makes you wonder what really is their intention...

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are You Aware of Your Own Bias? How About MLM Lawyers?

$
0
0
Human beings are remarkably adaptable creatures. However, sometimes, this adaptiveness works against us. One way this happens is we become unaware of our own biases. It is simply the way it is. And this is especially apparently in the MLM world. And it often takes a bit of outside information or criticism to make one aware of one's own bias.  (If you think I have a bias leaning one way or another, let me know in the comments!)

Anyway, with the Brouhaha between Ackman and Herbalife, one of the few MLM lawyers in the country, Jeffrey Babener, wrote an article on his MLMLegal.com about what he believed Ackman missed.

Previously I've analyzed John Hempton's position on Herbalife. Hempton is a fund manager and is opposed to Ackman's position and found Hempton has his own bias that he doesn't seem to realize (or not apparent from his writing), but he's a money manager, not a lawyer. A lawyer should cover all angles, right?

In this case, not quite. Mr. Babener showed quite a bit of bias too.


First, a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I'm just a junior skeptic. So my observations on Mr. Babener's bias will not be about his legal analysis... but his biases.

Mr. Babener discussed the caselaws that lead to the Amway safeguard rules, and before that, how FTC and SEC closed two of Glenn W. Turner's scams (one of which is Koscot Interplanetary). Then he jumped forward 40 years to Herbalife, and claimed that Ackman missed two big things:

1. Federal prosecution history of scams
2. Trend in allowing self-consumption
3. Trend toward self-consumption

Let us analyze each in turn.

Mr. Babener listed every large scale MLM-type scams in the past 20 some years, but he also included most SEC prosecuted scams (such as Ad Surf Daily and Zeek Rewards) which are more in the Ponzi schemethan pyramid scheme. His hypothesis basically claimed that there *is* a clear divide between what is a pyramid scheme / scam vs. a legal direct selling / network marketing, and he claimed that these scams shows a clear pattern on what's illegal which is very different from "established direct selling companies".
As a general matter, the facts of these federal prosecutions look nothing like the programs of established leading direct selling companies. They are often “inherently fraudulent” and often represent “egregious” abuse.
He conclusion, which reasonable, shows a bias /.assumption that is not readily apparent upon first read: that the Feds will only ever prosecute the "egregious" abuse cases. To borrow this horribly corny joke involving randy boys...
A: Stop masturbating, young man, or you'll go blind!
B: Can I do it until I need glasses?
To put it a different way, that Mr. Babener thought he proved was "established MLM companies do not abuse". What he actually proved was "established MLM companies do not abuse to the same extent as egregious scams".

What about self-consumption? Here Mr. Babener takes an interesting angle on the Webster vs. Omnitrition case. He noted that this decision about "ultimate consumer" is dicta (incidental ruling), not a formal decision. However, dicta decisions are some of the most influential decisions in the US history. I think most of you know that all babies born in the US, even by illegal residents, are US citizens. Did you know this is not law, or formal court ruling, but dicta? But enough about dictas. What about his interpretation?

Mr. Babener interprets Omnitrition ruling as a ruling against inventory loading, not against self-consumption. In his conclusion, he wrote:
In other words, this case was not really about "retail sales," nor "personal use," it was about inventory loading that defeated the goal of sales to the ultimate user. 
To give a short rehash, Omnitrition requires their "supervisors", who earns MLM commission, to achieve $1000 sales for 2 consecutive months to stay qualified. And it actively encouraged the supervisors to just "buy stuff and give them away" to participate in the profit sharing. The court ruled that
This compensation (by Ominitrition to supervisor) is facially "unrelated to the sale of the product to ultimate users" because it is paid based on the suggested retail price of the amount ordered from Omnitrition, rather than based on actual sales to consumers.
And thus it would fit the Koscot test for pyramid scheme, and thus Omnitrition is a pyramid scheme. Furthermore, the court also ruled:
In addition, plaintiffs (Omnitrition) have produced evidence that the 70% rule can be satisfied by a distributor's personal use of the products. If Koscot is to have any teeth, such a sale cannot satisfy the requirement that sales be to "ultimate users" of a product.[5]
There are other rulings and comments in the case but here are the two big ones. Together, they suggest that Omnitrition, which encourages its own "supervisors" to buy $1000 worth of products every month and give them away as "proven formula for success" to qualify for multi-level commissions is indeed a pyramid scheme. But what did the court mean about "if Koscot is to have any teeth"?

Koscot decision, which defined the pyramid scheme test, specified that when one joins a company, one buys the right to refer/recruit additional members, and is compensated by something OTHER THAN directly based on sales to ultimate consumers. If one can be one's own ultimate consumer, i.e. sell to one self, then clearly Koscot pyramid definition is being violated in spirit if not the letter.

To look at it from the "inventory loading" point of view, one of the more dangerous aspects of MLM is inventory loading, where the affiliate is loaded up with more inventory one can possibly sell (or consume, if you also count self-consumption) just so his upline can qualify for the commission. But in this case, inventory loading is a SYMPTOM of not retailing to ultimate consumer, not a cause.

The solution here is to pay affiliate commission on RETAIL SALES of products, not on their ORDER of products. If they give the stuff away, they get nothing. This was specifically referenced by the court.

By not recognizing inventory loading as the SYMPTOM of pyramid scheme, Mr. Babener have shown a bit of bias against Ackman's interpretation of Omnitrition case.

What about self-consumption? Mr. Babener then tried to build a case about how Self-consumption is being recognized on a state level and even to a limited extent by the FTC. He, however, failed to note that it was the DSA's own lobbying effort that is pushing that agenda. And what constitutes "reasonable self-consumption" was left up in the air. A trend is not always right, and this is strangely suggestive of bandwagon fallacy.

Personally, whatever's "reasonable" would be a company's own "recommended dosage" for ONE individual. And I honestly don't see how one can reasonably consume $1000 worth of vitamins in a month. Though I agree that if "reasonable" amount of self-consumption, along with enforcement of 10 retail customer rule, as well as pay people on RETAIL SALES instead of "ordered amount from corporate", should not trigger the Koscot test in any way shape, or form.

All in all, while Mr. Babener's article is not outright wrong, being an industry insider gave him a bit of bias that he may have not realized as he wrote it. I have no idea if he will ever read my little blog post, but I welcome comments from lawyers and other skeptics.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Zeek Claim Process Ends; 550 Million In Claims Received

$
0
0
Zeek Rewards Claim Process has ended at midnight, and soon after, Zeek Rewards receiver Ken Bell posted a letter that shared some interesting details:


  • Total amounts claimed is over $550 million
  • Total number of claimants number almost 200000 (average loss of $2750)
  • Lawsuits against net winners, as well as those who knew and did nothing are coming soon




Is TelexFree Playing Payment Roulette Just Like ZeekRewards's Dying Days?

$
0
0
Those who kept track of Zeek knew that during its final few months, it was playing "payment roulette", as it shuffled its payments all over the world, switching credit card processors like Lady Gaga changing outfits at a concert. It also had a bit of problem shifting funds among multiple eWallet providers. And the credit card processors are often on the other side of the globe (Cyprus, Greece, Korea, etc.) , which triggered many credit card fraud alerts, which then caused even more panic among its members.

Now apparently, TelexFree is doing the same, as "brand name" processors are dumping TelexFree.




Only in August did TelexFree recommend Global Payroll Gateway (GPG) as the source to use for paying into its coffers. Now in September, news spread that GPG had dumped TelexFree as a client, with the announcement straight from GPG itself, claiming that TelexFree is switching to somebody called International Payment Systems.

Zeek tried multiple eWallet providers during the last few months of its life as well. However, they were not under court order to stop paying people at the time.

With multiple TelexFree operations suddenly popping up all over the world (it was in Brazil, then the US, then suddenly there's now a TelexFree UK office, another virtual office) clearly someone is trying to endrun the legal decision in Brazil to keep the scheme running and continue to suck in more money from people with more greed than sense.

http://behindmlm.com/companies/telexfree/global-payroll-gateway-processor-drops-telexfree/


Enhanced by Zemanta

TelexFree UK Office is a lie, and here's proof (UPDATE: "New" address is also a lie)

$
0
0
Previously I've explained why TelexFree has no US office. Both addresses are just a mailbox. Recently TelexFree suddenly started showing a UK office:


And it quickly mushroomed into various Facebook groups, unofficial announcements that "TelexFree opportunity has reached UK", and so on and so forth.

No one seem to have even bothered to check the actual address itself:

15 Bromet Close, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD17 4LP UK


What if you Google that address? You will find that it's home to many different businesses. This is just on the first page:


They can't all have the EXACT SAME ADDRESS, can they? 


But wait, there's' even MORE businesses with that exact same address!



Even more companies sharing the exact same address! That only happens if this is not a real address, but merely a mail stop. 

Also notice that nobody bothered publishing a picture of this UK office. You know why? Because it doesn't exist. Address goes to a building's front door, not to a specific office. 

Someone paid a company registrar in UK to register a company called TelexFree. There is nobody in UK running TelexFree. 

So you're asking, wait, don't they *have* to have someone in UK? Nope. Here's an American (living in San Diego, CA) who runs at least 5 companies with that SAME ADDRESS in UK:

http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/benjamin-beau-patrick-hale

Conclusion is undeniable: TelexFree is intentionally trying to deceive its members regarding its place of business.

UPDATE: A commenter pointed out that a new address was published:

3 More London Riverside London, Greater London SE1 2RE United Kingdom

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are the Herbalife Diet Clubs Legal? (Hint: Probably not!)

$
0
0
Let's get to the point: Herbalife's best selling point: the diet club, is probably illegal in most instances, because they are not licensed or permitted to prepare food. In fact, I doubt most even have a license to retail food. 

Previously we've discussed Herbalife many times, and some of the stuff is how people who support Herbalife believe that most of its value is from the "diet clubs" that its distributors are running. I've discussed the problems with that particular view, though recently I realized I made a bad assumption. Peterson apparently introduced Herbalife to Mexico back in late 1980's, but nobody started doing "diet clubs" in Mexico until 2003, and it backfilled into the US in 2006. (I had assumed he introduced stuff to Mexico much later.)

However, here's a more interesting question... Are the diet clubs even LEGAL?

Now you're probably going, huh? How can a diet club be illegal?

By being an illegal food preparer and retailer without the proper permits.



In Herbalife's home, Los Angeles County, the local department of public health has ALREADY shut down two diet clubs that operated in retail spaces without a restaurant permit. Yes, milk and fruit and and shake preparation is food preparation, and food preparation requires a restaurant license.
Operating from homes is a concern to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.
It's against the law to prepare and sell food — even nutrition shakes — from homes, said Eric Edwards, a county environmental health specialist. The county has shut down two Herbalife nutrition clubs in the last year for operating in retail space without proper health licenses, according to health department records.
"You can't operate a restaurant out of your home," Edwards said. "When they are making the shakes they are preparing food. Then they're expected to follow all the same rules, regulations and laws that a restaurant would."
Got that? It's pretty obvious that most diet clubs are operating ILLEGALLY under the radar of the regulators.

Of course, Mr. Hempton, one of Herbalife's fans and supporters, loved the diet clubs. In fact, he thinks that it's what made Herbalife special, what made most MLMs special.  And he even visited a few in state of New York.

Did any of the New York diet clubs visited by Mr. Hempton even have a food retail license (i.e. no preparation), much less food preparation license

I seriously doubt it.

The feature he loved is being operated ILLEGALLY. What a joke. 

This is not hard to fix, of course. Simply go get the permits.

But Herbalife doesn't actually condone the operation of the diet clubs. According to Bloomberg news report, the affiliates are not even allowed to display Herbalife logo outside. They urge their affiliates to comply with all local laws and ordinances.

How many do you actually think will actually go get a license?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bad Argument: I Know What I Am Doing! (No you don't)

$
0
0
NOTE: this is a completed version of a previous post

Sometimes, when you tried to reason with a supporter of suspect scheme, and they have no logical retort to your points, they will instead bring out the "I know what I am doing" bad argument, which generally goes like this:

A: Acme XYZ is a scam because ____, ____, and ____.

B: I know Acme XYZ is not a scam. I know what I am doing. It's my business, not yours.

This is a total red herring, because it neither argues against the premise, nor argues for the counter-premise. It is completely unrelated.

What's more, there are several problems with one. One of which is "illusory superiority", in that we always think we are better than we really are. It's called "self-esteem". But there's more.




A specialized form of illusory superiority is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, in that the people who are incompetent are ignorant of their incompetence, and people who are competent, in turn, are less confident of their own abilities. Or in other words, stupid people are not aware of their own stupidity. They will take a test, then when asked to estimate how they did, they will give high scores of themselves. Conversely, people who are competent (not master), aware of their own limitations, will get higher test scores, but give themselves low estimate of their performance.

So the question becomes: if they have no logical retort left, and given the Dunning-Kruger effect, how can they conclude that they know what they're doing?
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.-- Socrates, ancient Greek philosopher
If you REALLY think you know what you're doing, you wouldn't be so confident. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Does Peter Principle Affect MLM?

$
0
0
Peter Principle states that "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence". Of course, Peter Principle is talking about work and promotion within a company, where there are rules and ethics and such governing such promotions. Does Peter Principle apply to the MLM world? Very much so, albeit with much more disastrous consequences.

At its heart, Peter Principle is about how human beings apply their bias: why change what works, even though its a new situation. When this is applied to people, i.e. a person will keep doing what he's doing, even though he's promoted to a new set of responsibilities, that person will no longer advance unless s/he learns new set of skills.

However, such change of responsibility are sorely lacking in network marketing. When you "grow" in MLM, you don't really take on bigger responsibilities other than training or inspiring new members.

Network marketing has two primary skills: sell products/services, and recruit people. Both can be called "sales" to a certain extent, but require very different persuasive arguments.

To sell a person the product/service, you will argue that the service/product will make his/her life better in some way, and the price to benefit ratio is good, esp. among any competitors.

To sell a person the position (i.e. recruit), you will simply appeal to the person's greed, envy, and pride. Don't you want to be financially independent? Don't you want to be successful (like other people)? Don't you want to join a winning team? So on and so forth.

One appeal to base desires (7 deadly sins, any one?) while the other appeals to logic. Guess which one is easier? Appeal to the sins, of course.



Let's say you can resist the temptation and sell products/service ethically instead of appeal to greed and such. You sell to the same people, maybe you hold a slightly different party every few weeks doing demos, but most of you won't make it big. Because you concentrate on SALES, and you can't do personalized sales to bazillion people at once. You can make it through referrals, word of mouth, and build up your business, but you won't make it BIG. You can live comfortably, doing something you like, but you won't make BIG bucks this way.

But you can RECRUIT OTHER PEOPLE to do sales... Which is heart of MLM. So... why not just skip the sales, and go straight to recruiting? Then you become a pyramid scheme, because you actually don't sell, even though MLM is about marketing (or sales). You just recruit, cart before the horse and all that.

Think about it: most MLM events are designed to reward RECRUITERS, not sellers. Recognitions are usually for team sales volumes (TV or GV), not individual sales volumes (PV). But that makes individual sellers, esp. the leaders lazy. They just do the bare minimum to qualify for multilevel payout (if that's even enforced, and they can always "borrow" a few sales from their downlines).

That just means MLM is ALWAYS in danger of reverting back to pyramid scheme (from which it had evolved), and there is little incentive for one to actually sell things, but instead, to money is made from recruiting OTHER people to sell things. And when there are only sales people buying things, not customers, then you have a pyramid scheme.

Let's assume again, that you're able to avoid the temptation of pyramid scheme and managed to achieve the team volumes and personal volumes properly through a lot of actual sales, not self-consumption and other cheats. You managed to recruit a bunch of ethical sales people like yourself who also did avoided temptation of recruitment schemes... So you advance... to what?

You get a shiny "rank" in the genealogy, you may get a mention in the company newsletter, and your commission rate goes up a notch. So what? You're still doing the same thing.

Let's say you're able to grow your sales team (having encouraged those who have absolutely no talent at all, or had the heart in the wrong place, or have no ethics in his/her heart, and so on, to leave your team) then what? You may be encouraged to speak, teach, inspire, some other teams, while you're encouraged to attend similar events held by a higher rank member than you are. Then what?

Given the amount of temptation you have faced thus far, it's clear that MAJORITY of the uplines you will encounter will be of the recruitment type. They see MLM is a recruiting game, with sales a completely secondary goal. Thus far, you have flown the straight and narrow path of ethical sales, thus, their techniques will not apply to you. Little if anything you learn will apply to you.

And it's clear that sooner or later, you'll run into a group who's simply NOT receptive to your ethical view of MLM, that sales comes first, and people who want to take shortcut should get out of town.

You've just proven that Peter Principle works in MLM... if you follow the ethical route.

If you prefer to go unethical... i.e. treat MLM as a recruitment scheme / pyramid scheme where you simply grab every warm body you can to fill your downline spaces... then your rise will be like a Saturn V rocket (assuming you have decent social skills and knows what sin buttons to push in people), and all your downlines will behave exactly like you... monkey see, monkey do except those who has a conscience, who will then leave.

How much of a conscience do you have? How many lies are you willing to tell to add a new recruit to your trophy wall? Will you go as far as Shawn Dahl's "Scamworld" recruiting empire, which is a clone of his mother-in-law's pyramid scheme in Canada? That raised him all the way to "Founder's Circle" in Herbalife, until he decided Herbalife is too clean (ethical?) for his taste, and left for Vemma? And what does that say about the top affiliates in Herbalife, if many of them are now leaving for other companies like Nutrie, Vemma, and so on, complaining that Herbalife's new marketing policy is a "handcuff" and one even committed suicide?

Peter Principle definitely applies to MLM... if you want to stay ethical. Because there is minimal supervision (few if any companies actively enforce their ethics code on members unless you are exploiting other members  or customers and being very egregious about the abuse and people made complaints straight to corporate ethics department) you are free to say "I am tired of enforcing rules on myself when nobody else does" at any time.

Then you'll be in a pyramid scheme. Of your own doing.

Thus is the danger of MLM.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Watch How Magician Thief Apollo Robbins explains Misdirection

$
0
0
TED (conference)
TED (conference) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Your brain has limited amount of processing power available, and generally it concentrates on one sense or another, or it can spend time going over your previous memories, but rarely if ever, do both with any sort of proper efficiency. Thus is the power of misdirection... Focusing on the things that you thought were important, but wasn't.

Apollo Robbins, the "gentleman thief", otherwise known as a theatrical pickpocket, makes a living by taking stuff out of other people's pockets in front of live audiences, and returning them, in amusing and mind-boggling ways. He recently got on TED talk and explained how his techniques work: your attention span (aka "Frank") is solo-tasking... can only do one thing at a time. Sound, vision, touch, smell, taste, or memory search. It can't do multiple things at once. And even when you see or hear, you engage only a tiny portion of your various senses.

When you see something, you only focus on the portion you need to focus on, even though you technically saw the whole thing. If I ask you to take our your smartphone and ask what icon is in lower right corner, put it away, then ask you did you see what time it was on the phone... would you know? That's part of the misdirection... You did see the phone... you just didn't see the clock portion (upper right in almost all instances).

Thieves and scam artists use the same tricks to get you to pay attention on parts you *can* see, known as the "focusing bias", and ignore the parts you can't see (fraudulent claims of profitability).  Magic always have a link with cons, as magic is basically playing with your confidence of your senses. However, magic is benign, while scams are not, as observed by magician Joss Stone.




I've previously explained that many scammers are amateur, or semi-pro magicians. Indeed, with power of misdirection (or pick-pocketing as a subset) it'd be incredibly easy to earn lots of money... if one has no ethics. Paul Burks, head of Zeek Rewards, was "the singing magician" before he went on to create the largest Ponzi scheme (in terms of victims) in US history.

Watch Apollo Robbins on his TED Talk, and enjoy the misdirection. And hint: did you figure out his final trick?

http://www.ted.com/talks/apollo_robbins_the_art_of_misdirection.html
Enhanced by Zemanta

Bad Argument: "Focusing Bias" used as "proof" of viewpoint

$
0
0
Focus Bias (also known as Focusing illusion, Focusing effect, or Spotlight Effect), is a type of cognitive bias where the mind emphasize the portion of the issue they have exposure to (personal experience, personal calculation or consideration, etc.) and ignore / de-emphasize the portion of the issues that they don't see / understand, and thus cannot evaluate. This very often happens in MLM. Supporters of a scheme tend to overemphasize the importance of portions of the MLM system they have been exposed to, while ignoring the portions of the system they know little about.

One way this manifests itself is the supporter thinks because they experience ONE PART of the scheme, and that part seem to work fine, the entire scheme must be fine (and legitimate!)  I termed this "it paid me!" argument.

For TVI Express pyramid scheme, it would be the website, or sometimes, the actual trip that came with the membership, and for a few, the actual payout at one or two levels of the matrix. They don't care about the obvious pyramid scheme aspects of the scheme.

For Zeek Rewards, it would be the penny auctions, the "giving away bids", watching their "cash account" build up, and for some, real money in their bank. They pay no attention to where the money is really coming from, are there enough auctions to generate that much profit, and so on.

For Lyoness, it would be the how shopping build up their "accounting units" therefore they conclude that Lyoness works great, and they pay no attention to the part where you can BUY your units and recruit others to do so and thus benefit from it.

For each of these scams or suspect schemes, the supporters basically had the focusing bias where they focuses almost EXCLUSIVELY on the parts they have been exposed to, and they somehow feel that is the ONLY part that mattered (to them), while ignoring any other parts they had not been exposed to or know about.

That is a very dangerous position to be in, as there's more than a few ways a MLM business can cause you trouble.


A MLM business can fail in many different ways

The product you sell can be woo, or worse, cause harm

There's plenty of woo sold through MLM. How about $500 glass disk? Pitcher that "aligns" water? There are even peddlers of "miracle mineral" that you're supposed to dose with acid and drink even though the result is the sort of chemical you find in industrial bleach.


You may be selling the products without proper permits

Did you know most Herbalife diet clubs are illegal, as they lack the permit to prepare and retail food? Yes, you need a license to sell food, and a nutritional shake is food. Same goes for other similar product lines.


You can be marketing the products wrong by making potentially fraudulent claims

Simple question... Do you, as a MLMer, know the FTC Guidelines on Online Marketing Disclosure? You don't? Oh, boy. You're probably already in trouble. Better go read what MLM Attorney Kevin Thompson wrote about it.  How do you know you're compliant if you don't even know what the rules are? Hmmm?


You can be a part of illegal Ponzi or pyramid scheme (and you just won't admit it to yourself)

I, along with OzSoapbox, M_Norway, and many others have warned people for MONTHS that Zeek Rewards is probably a ponzi scheme, LONG before SEC shut down them in August 2012. Yet it's amazing how many people have posted what they perceive to be "defense" of Zeek using completely non-sensical arguments. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ]

I did the same for TVI Express even longer, starting in 2009/2010. And it's amazing how many people are in denial over it. Some of them went as far as redefining "city boundary" in order to defend the bogus location of TVI Express. Eventually that person gave up and shut down his website... but how many downlines did he ruin, along with his own reputation?

----

Don't *assume* you're right. You can be a victim of focusing bias.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Herbalife's Petition By Omission: CEO Johnson asking members to fudge details with their congressional reps.

$
0
0
In July 2013, Herbalife CEO Michael O. Johnson, after having flown to Washington D.C. and consult with various Hispanic members of congress and other Latino civic groups, realized that he will not be able to convince them to stop pressuring FTC into looking into Herbalife. So he attempted an end-run... he circulated a template, to be given to all Latino distributors of Herbalife, to be customized and mailed to their own representative, to "call off the hounds on Herbalife".

Nothing wrong in rallying your own people, but are the points in the template accurate? Not really. The template, obtained by various media sources, including NY Post and Mr. Robert Fitzpatrick of PyramidSchemeAlert, shows that the letter is a perfect example of fudging details, mainly by claiming things that is in serious doubt even by Herbalife's own materials.

But first, let's go over a few facts. By facts, I mean those that can easily be found and VERIFIED in public. Indeed, many are from Hebalife themselves.

FACT: Herbalife CEO Michael Johnson is one of the highest paid CEO in the US, taking home $89.4 million in 2011, including salary, bonus, cashed stock options and such. (Actual salary is about 8 million) That number fell to $10.3 million in 2012 due to lack of stock options exercised in 2012  (source: CNBC and Bloomberg)

FACT: Herbalife CEO Michael Johnson was also the 2nd largest individual shareholder in Herbalife since 2011. That's over a million shares. At today's rate, that's worth $60-70 million.

When you combine the two, you perhaps can understand why Michael Johnson is fighting so hard... Johnson stands to lose his job and his personal fortune.   He's not merely defending his company, he's also defending his job and his nest egg.

FACT: Herbalife states that 60% of its sales are made through Latino distributors (presumably, to Latino consumers).

FACT: Latinos comprise just 17% of US population.

When you combine these two facts, perhaps you can understand why the Latino community, including various members of the legislature, civil rights and community groups, and such are wondering why is Herbalife so... pervasive in Latino communities vs. in OTHER communities.  You'd expect such a large company to be commonplace through all communities, not concentrated in Latino communities.

FACT: Herbalife CEO Johnson has emailed Herbalife distributors, asking them to email their representatives based on the following form letter. The form letter contains a lot of omissions which will create the wrong impression of Herbalife without any fact checking. The letter is included below, courtesy of PyramidSchemeAlert (where it's available with Mr. Fitzpatrick's commentary):





NOTE: I will include some comments which I will use a different font and red color to indicate it is commentary.

Herbalife’s Pre-Written Letter for Distributors to
Email to Congress
I live in your district and for [NUMBER] years have been
an independent Distributor of Herbalife International of
America. Being an Herbalife independent Distributor, I
know first-hand how well the products work for me, and
how they have helped my family and my customers
lead a healthier lifestyle. I also know first-hand how
selling Herbalife products in my community has helped
me supplement my family's income. 
According to Herbalife's January 2013 rebuttal presentation, 73% of distributors do not expect to make supplemental income. The other 27% expect to but may not have realized any income. Is this letter only for the "less than 27%" that have made some income? 
My family and I need your help: A billionaire New York
hedge fund manager named Bill Ackman is attempting
to use Members of Congress to make him even
wealthier. He has placed a $1 billion bet against
Herbalife by shorting the company's stock. Right now,
Mr. Ackman's swarm of lobbyists are making wild
unfounded accusations that somehow Herbalife is
"preying" on unsophisticated minorities, especially
Latinos.
According to lobbying records via OpenSecrets, Herbalife itself spend just under a million every year on lobbyists between 2010 and 2012.  And it has just hired Podesta group, another lobbyist firm in September 2013, the third firm it had retained. According to NYPost in same article, Herbalife is outspending Ackman's Pershing Capital in lobbying by ratio of 10 to 1 (560K vs 54K) in 2013 thus far.

Herbalife CEO Johnson flew to Washington in July 2013 to head off efforts by Congress to push FTC to investigate Herbalife. And Herbalife itself is worth almost 8 billion in Market Cap. 

Accusing the other side as "billionaire" , while accurate, is misleading by omission. 
I may not live in a billionaire's New York
penthouse like Mr. Ackman, but I know the value of
hard work and honesty. And I know that Herbalife has
made an important and positive difference in my
family's life.
And although I can only speak for myself, I know that I
am not alone. Based on independent research
conducted in the U.S. in 2013 by Nielsen Research,
63% of former Herbalife Distributors would recommend
the business opportunity to a friend or family member
and 87% would recommend the product. That is an
impressive show of consumer confidence!
The Nielsen research was funded by Herbalife.  What's even more interesting to note is the figures are significantly higher than the survey ordered by Herbalife only 6 months ago. Furthermore, if the business opportunity is so good, why would the person have quit in the first place? And why would they recommend a business opportunity if 73% of them do not expect to make a profit? 

Here's Herbalife's own press release, and here's Ackman's rebuttal. Read both before you make your own conclusions. 
I urge you to refrain from joining with billionaire Ackman in writing to the FTC to come after Herbalife. I would also appreciate the opportunity to tell you in person about my experiences with the company and in my
community. I would like to stop by your District office
during the August recess to become better acquainted.
I am proud that as Independent Distributor I am helping
my community improve its nutrition habits while being
able to make some supplemental income so my family
can lead better and more productive lives.
When you think about Herbalife, think about me. I am
proud of what I do.
Hypothetical question... If a victim doesn't know he's being cheated, does his opinion of the scam artist actually count for anything? If you don't know if Herbalife is indeed cheating the distributors, then perhaps you should NOT take into account opinions of its possible victims. (This is one of the cases where democracy is not useful)

There's no doubt Herbalife is in a fight for its life, and the outcome will likely determine MLM's future in the US. If you worry about your future in MLM, you should keep CLOSE attention to all that is going on, and stop relying on press releases and marketing talk for your decisions.
Enhanced by Zemanta
Viewing all 572 articles
Browse latest View live