There comes a time when we are all sucked into a scam of some sort. Unfortunately we are occasionally conned by the (apparently) valid arguments. Our interest allows us to click away to learn of the amazing money makeing “schems” . Many ARE valid but sadly most are not. THey are simply ther to cream info about our finances or identity from our computers for illegal use.

Be Prepared (Lord Baden Powell, Souting movement)

Be Alert, But Not Alarmed (Australian Government)

Source: BBB (Better Business Bureau)

Better Business Bureau investigates thousands of scams every year, from the latest gimmicks to schemes as old as the hills. Our new Scam Source (www.bbb.org/scam) is a comprehensive resource on scam investigations from BBBs around the country, with tips from BBB, law enforcement and others. You can sign up to receive our Scam Alerts by email, and you can also be a scam detective yourself by reporting scams you’ve discovered.

We’ve divided scams up into nine major categories and picked the top scam in each, plus our Scam of the Year.

Top Job Scam

BBB sees lots of secret shopper schemes, work-from-home scams, and other phony job offers, but the worst job-related scam can dash your hopes and steal your identity. Emails, websites and online applications all look very professional, and the candidate is even interviewed for the job (usually over the phone) and then receives an offer. In order to start the job, however, the candidate has to fill out a “credit report” or provide bank information for direct deposit of their “paychecks.” The online forms are nothing more than a way to capture sensitive personal data – Social Security number, bank accounts, etc. – that can easily be used for identity theft. And, of course, there is no job, either.

Top Sweepstakes and Lottery Scam

Sweepstakes and lottery scams come in all shapes and sizes, but the bottom line is almost always this: You’ve won a whole lot of money, and in order to claim it you have to send us a smaller amount of money. Oh, and keep this confidential until we’re ready to announce your big winnings. This year’s top sweepstakes scam was undoubtedly the email claiming to be from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announcing that the recipient was the winner of $1 million from the popular social networking site. These kinds of scams often use celebrities or other famous names to make their offer seem more genuine. If you aren’t sure, don’t click on the link but instead go directly to the homepage of the company mentioned. If they are really giving away $1 million, there will be some kind of announcement on their website. But don’t waste too much time looking.

Top Social Media/Online Dating Scam

On the Internet, it’s easy to pretend to be someone you are not. Are you really friends with all of your “Friends” on Facebook? Do you have a lot of personal information on a dating site? With so much information about us online, a scammer can sound like they know you. There are tons of ways to use social media for scams, but one this year really stands out because it appeals to our natural curiosity…and it sounds like it’s coming from a friend. Viral videos claiming to show everything from grisly footage of Osama bin Laden’s death to the latest celebrity hijinks have shown up on social media sites, often looking as if they have been shared by a friend. When you click on the link, you are prompted to “upgrade your Flash player,” but the file you end up downloading contains a worm that logs into your social media account, sends similar messages to your friends, and searches for your personal data. The next time you see a sensational headline for the latest viral video, resist the urge to peek.

Top Home Improvement Scam

Always near the top of BBB complaint data are home improvement contractors who often leave your home worse than they found it. They usually knock on your door with a story or a deal – the roofer who can spot some missing shingles on your roof, the paver with some leftover asphalt who can give you a great deal on driveway resealing. Itinerant contractors move around, keeping a step ahead of the law…and angry consumers. The worst are those who move in after a natural disaster, taking advantage of desperate homeowners who need immediate help and may not be as suspicious as they would be under normal circumstances. A large percentage of BBB’s Accredited Businesses are home contractors who want to make sure you know they are legitimate, trustworthy and dependable. Find one at www.bbb.org/search.

Top Check Cashing Scam

Two legitimate companies – Craig’s List and Western Union – are used for an inordinate amount of scamming these days, and especially check cashing scams. Here’s how it works: Someone contacts you via a Craig’s List posting, maybe for a legitimate reason like buying your old couch or perhaps through a scam like hiring you as a secret shopper. Either way, they send you a check for more than the amount they owe you, and they ask you to deposit it into your bank account and then send them the difference via Western Union. A deposited check takes a couple of days to clear, whereas wired money is gone instantly. When the original check bounces, you are out whatever money you wired…and you’re still stuck with the old couch.

Top Phishing Scam

“Phishing” is when you receive a suspicious phone call asking for personal information or an email that puts a virus on your computer to hunt for your data. It’s almost impossible to avoid them if you have a telephone or an email account. But the most pernicious phishing scam this year disguised itself as official communication from NACHA – the National Automated Clearing House Association – which facilitates the secure transfer of billions of electronic transactions every year. The email claims one of your transactions did not go through, and it hopes you react quickly and click on the link before thinking it through. It may take you to a fake banking site “verify” you account information, or it may download malware to infiltrate your computer.

Top Identity Theft Scam

There are a million ways to steal someone’s identity. This one has gotten so prevalent that many hotels are posting warnings in their lobby. Here’s how it works: You get a call in your hotel room in the middle of the night. It’s the front desk clerk, very apologetic, saying their computer has crashed and they need to get your credit card number again, or they must have gotten the number wrong because the transaction won’t go through, and could you please read the number back so they can fix the problem? Scammers are counting on you being too sleepy to catch on that the call isn’t from the hotel at all, but from someone outside who knows the direct-dial numbers for the guest rooms. By the time morning rolls around and you are clear-headed, your credit card has been on a major shopping spree.

Top Financial Scam

In challenging economic times, many people are looking for help getting out of debt or hanging on to their home, and almost as many scammers appear to take advantage of desperate situations. Because the federal government announced or expanded several mortgage relief programs this year, all kinds of sound-alike websites have popped up to try to fool consumers into parting with their money. Some sound like a government agency, or even part of BBB or other nonprofit consumer organization. Most ask for an upfront fee to help you deal with your mortgage company or the government (services you could easily do yourself for free), and almost all leave you in more debt than when you started.

Top Sales Scam

Sales scams are as old as humanity, but the Internet has introduced a whole new way to rip people off. Penny auctions are very popular because it seems like you can get something useful – cameras, computers, etc. – for way below retail. But you pay a small fee for each bid (usually 50₵ to $1.00) and if you aren’t the winner, you lose that bid money. Winners often are not even the top bidder, just the last bidder when time runs out. Although not all penny auction sites are scams, some are being investigated as online gambling. BBB recommends you treat them the same way you would legal gambling in a casino – know exactly how the bidding works, set a limit for yourself, and be prepared to walk away before you go over that limit.

Scam of the Year

Yep, it’s us – the BBB phishing scam. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people have gotten emails that very much look like an official notice from BBB. The subject line says something like “Complaint Against Your Business,” and the instructions tell the recipient to either click on a link or open an attachment to get the details. If the recipient does either, a malicious virus is launched on their computer…a virus that can steal banking information, passwords and other critical pieces of information needed for cyber-theft. BBB is working with security consultants and federal law enforcement to track down the source of these emails, and has already shut down dozens of hijacked websites. Anyone who has opened an attachment or clicked on a link should run a complete system scan using reputable anti-virus software. If your computer is networked with others, all machines on the network should be scanned, as well.

More Info

For more information on these and other scams, go to BBB Scam Source (www.bbb.org/scam). Sign up for our Scam Alerts and learn about new scams as soon as we do.

DO NOT TRUST MANNATECH!

I used to run health & business teleseminars and physical open seminars and trainings across Australia and New Zealand with full authority of and publicity by Mannatech.

Mannatech does not follow it’s own policies and precedures. They interpret them to suit themselves and allow select top distributors free reign to do whatever they wish so long as they are “in the good books”.

The company and some top distributors then turned on me because I also associated with other companies that sold what Mannatech considered to be competitive products. They were NOT.

Mannatech accused me of crossline and downline promotion of competing companies that could not be proven. Distributors and company officials lied in statutory declarations.

The company finally decided to terminate my business after 10+ years of dedicated promotion and support. They can do that because they sign the cheques, have expensive lawyers and deeper pockets to fight you till you are exhausted, emotionally destroyed or have run out of money (or all of the above)

Mannatech Terminates Glenn in 2007.

A group of the top Mannatech distributors did not like me because I was making waves in the internet marketing and got popular on my international conference call.

They made up stories and blatantly lied to Mannatech. Mannatech took their word for it did not investigate properly.

They terminated me without warning citing solicitation.

I fought them, at my own cost and with no legal representation for nearly six months, and won my distributorship back again.

However they could never prove fault on my behalf.

In 2008 I got a corporate job as Sales and Marketing Manager in Amega Global, a new MLM to Australia. I felt obliged to terminate myself from Mannatech due to a potential conflict of interest. The paperwork was never confirmed accepted by them.

Forward to June 2010

In June 2010 (12 months later, after Mannatech’s non-solicit clause had expired) I put out some marketing info on a new MLM to my email lists.

Mannatech did it AGAIN…

They attempted to put the 12 month solicitation clause after temination into effect… even though I had been terminated for over 12 months!

They claimed I was only terminated from them from March 2010 when they entered my termination into their system. They would not accept the legal (effective) date on the signed termination form!

They blatantly refused to correct the termination date in their system, however, after months of bullying by Mannatech we mutually agreed on 1 Jan 2010 as the effective end of rights and responsibilites following termination (under extreme duress on my part).

Here’s My Beef

Distributor lists are NOT confidential information owned by the company. They are  JOINTLY OWNED.

MLM companies say they OWN the customer list. No matterwhere it comes from. They say I have no right to use it after I cease being a distributor, even though as part of my business requirement was to build a business network at MY cost.

MLM company customer list and solicitation definitions are too draconian! They do not take into account how a business network develops. They do not even take into account relationships that existed prior to becoming a distributor with thaat company.

A HUGE change is due and I welcome the ruling that came in against Melaleuca,  a company with the MOST draconian rules I have ever seen.

I know of an Australian couple who fought Melaleuca for this same reason.. They settled out of court but they were minus $250,000 in legal fees! It apparently cost Melaleuca 10 times that!

MLM companies think that if a distributor (or ex distributor) sends an email promoting another opportunity (MLM or otherwise) to one of their distributors then that distributor will stop producing an income for them.

That is totally false and built totally on fear of loss!

If THAT distributor is so ready to jump to another company or opportunity then so be it. They were not committed to the company in the first place and ANY opportunity that came along would interest them, from me or otherwise.

I make the comparison to a Catholic talking to a Jew with the intent to being converted to Judaism. If it was meant to happen then let it happen. If not the Catholic will stay with their faith and say thanks but no thanks. Everyone is still happy.

I believe this is how it should be in MLM. Let people make up their own mind and get on with business of seeking and keeping happy customers and ditributors, not trying to hold onto the ones that are not interested anyhow.

That’s my rant for now… I could talk on this topic for hours. I will not bore you with more here so call me to talk to me if this has happened to you or you need advice as to how to proceed if it IS happening to you.

Statement of Policies non-compete clause ruled illegal in a summary judgment that could have far reaching effects for independent contractors with other multilevel marketing (MLM) companies as well

At the heart of a large number of lawsuits in multilevel marketing (a.k.a. network marketing) enterprises, is the question of what rules should govern the business behavior of a distributor (associate, independent consultant, IBO, etc., whatever the designation in the particular company) when that distributor decides he or she wants to work with another company.

For example, here are just some of the questions that arise regarding Distributor A of Company A:

• Can a distributor for Company A participate in other MLM companies or businesses in general?
• Can a distributor of Company A “recruit” or sell the products of Company B to any other distributors in Company A?
• If so, which distributors? Ones they knew before they joined Company A? Only distributors who were personally sponsored into Company A by Distributor A? Or none at all?
• If Distributor A quits or is terminated by Company A, then should there be a “non-compete” clause?
• If so, for how long? What activities would be covered by the “non-compete” clause?

These are not easy questions to answer to make sure that Distributor A has the appropriate freedoms of being an Independent Contractor while making sure that Distributor A does not hurt other distributors in Company A and other distributors in the sales organization that he built with Company A.

In Melaleuca, the associates are called “Marketing Executives” and are, like with other companies, legally defined as independent contractors. The non-compete provision in this case is defined in Melaleuca’s Statement of Policies and Definition of Terms at Policy 20.

The parties’ chief disagreement concerns the applicability and, importantly, the legality of Policy 20 of this Policy as part of Melaleuca’s Independent Marketing Executive Agreement (IMEA).

Below are some of the pertinent sections of Melaleuca’s very long Policy 20. Non-Solicitation and Conflicts of Interest as discussed in Judge Jon J. Shindurling’s Opinion, Decision and Order for Summary Judgment filed December 3rd, 2010 in Bonneville County Idaho:

Policy 20 is a lengthy section of the IMEA entitled Non-Solicitation and Conflicts of Interest. It forms the basis of Melaleuca’s complaint against the Foellers. The Foellers argue that Policy 20 contains an illegal liquidated damages provision and that Melaleuca’s cause of action is barred under Idaho law.

Policy 20 allows Melaleuca contractors to participate in other business activities while they work for Melaleuca. However, the IMEA contains a number of limitations on the competing business activities. The relevant limitation is: “During the period that their Independent Marketing Executive Agreements are in force Marketing Executives and all members of their Immediate Household are prohibited from directly, indirectly or through a third party recruiting any Melaleuca Customers or Marketing Executives to participate in any other business ventures.” –Policy 20 (a)(i).

The IMEA Melaleuca Definitions of Terms defines “recruit” as:

1) To attempt to enroll, enlist, or solicit an individual or entity to join a business, program or organization; or 2) to attempt to promote, influence or encourage an individual or entity to join a business, program or organization; or 3) to present, or participate or assist in the presentation of a business, program, organization or its products. To constitute recruiting, such efforts or attempts may be performed either directly through personal contact or indirectly through a third party.

The policy goes so far as to state that such activities are violations “even if the Marketing Executive does not know that the prospect is also a Melaleuca Customer or Marketing Executive.”

Policy 20 also states:

Violation of any provision of this Policy 20 constitutes a Marketing Executive’s voluntary resignation and cancellation of his/her Independent Marketing Executive Agreement, effective as of the date of the violation, and the forfeiture by the Marketing executive of all commissions or bonuses payable for and after the calendar month in which the violation occurred. –Policy 20(c)(i).

Note that it was this particular provision, Policy 20(c)(i) that was at the heart of Melaleuca’s Motion for Summary Judgment in their case against Rick and Natalie Foeller, NOT the whole non-compete policy. (Non-solicitation clauses are generally regarded as necessary and important parts of any MLM company’s policies.)  But, this is one of the provisions that put real teeth in to Melaleuca’s whole policy.

Melaleuca argued that the quoted provisions of the IMEA allow it to demand repayment of all commission payments since June 2008, when the first violation of Policy 20 was alleged to have occurred.

The Foellers argued that the forfeiture provision of Policy 20 constitutes a liquidated damages policy and an illegal penalty.

Interestingly, the judge argued that it really didn’t matter whether the clause was a liquidated damages clause or not and ruled that the clause was not allowed by Idaho contract law in any case:

However it is not necessary for a provision to be styled as a liquidated damages clause in order for it to be an illegal penalty. “[W]here the forfeiture of damage fixed by the contract is arbitrary and bears no reasonable relation to the anticipated damage, and is exorbitant and unconscionable, it is regarded as a ‘penalty’, and the contractual provision therefore is void and unenforceable.” Magic Valley Truck Brokers, Inc. v. Meyer, 133 Idaho 110, 117, 982 p.2d 945, 952 (Ct. App 1999).

Clauses intended to punish a breaching party are not allowed in Idaho contract law.

…

Melaleuca states that the amount requested is reasonable because it exactly matches the damages Melaleuca suffered as a result of paying commissions to the Foellers. This argument is unconvincing based on the evidence currently before this court. Melaleuca seeks to retroactively take money paid to the Foellers for sales commissions; there is no argument or evidence that these commissions were not tied to profitable sales as a result of the Foellers’ work as contractors for Melaleuca or that these are recognizable damages. Rather it appears that, lacking other evidence, Policy 20(c)(1) acts solely to “deter a breach or to punish the breaching party.”

There remains a genuine issue of material fact as to what damages Melaleuca suffered as a result of the Foellers’ recruitment of Melaleuca customers and executives into Max. Summary judgment is not appropriate on this issue and will be denied.

In other words, there was no evidence presented that Melaleuca did not profit from the sales that produced those commissions, in fact, there was no evidence that Melaleuca had been damaged at all by the Foellers’ alleged breach of Policy 20. If the judge allowed Melaleuca to reclaim those commissions paid after the alleged breach of the contract, it would allow an “illegal penalty” (and policy provision) that sought only to punish the breaching party to be enforced and, very probably, an injustice to rendered.

Over the years, how many times have we heard of companies taking away a distributor’s business over alleged violations of similar rules in the company’s P&Ps?

In many of those cases, might the forfeiture of the distributor’s entire business and income stream be an “arbitrary” penalty that bears no “reasonable relation” to the real damages sustained by the company and be “exorbitant and unconscionable?” There is no question that may be true many times, and not true other times.

Should not the punishment fit the crime?

It is important that these matters be handled in a way that is just for all concerned.  And that rarely is as easy as taking away a business and income stream that a distributor, and independent contractor, may have worked many years to build over policy infractions that may have cost the company little or nothing in actual damages.

[Bold fonts are inserted by the author of this post.]

Natalie Foeller’s Facebook page carried this post dated the 3rd of December:

Attention all networkers: I have been hoping that this day would come….Melaleuca sued us 1 1/2 years ago and so far has not won any motion against us. Today, they had their biggest loss. Melaleuca proudly say they never lose a case, well they sure did today! This is a huge set back for Melaleuca and a huge win for those that will come up against them in the future!

—————————————————-

Glenn’s COMMENTS & OPINION

Mannatech (Australia and USA) did the same to me (Glenn) back in 2007.

A group of the top Mannatech distributors did not like me because I was making waves in the internet marketing and got popular on my international conference call. They made up stories and blatantly lied to Mannatech. Mannatech took their word for it did not investigate properly.

They terminated me without warning citing solicitation. I fought them, at my own cost and with no legal representation for nearly six months, and won my distributorship back again. However they could never prove fault on my behalf.

In 2008 I got a corporate job as Sales and Marketing Manager in Amega Global, a new MLM to Australia. I felt obliged to terminate myself from Mannatech due to a potential conflict of interest. The paperwork was never confirmed accepted by them.

In June 2010 (12 months later, after Mannatech’s non-solicit clause had expired) I put out some marketing info on a new MLM (LiveSmart260) to my email lists, Mannatech did it AGAIN… They attempted to put the 12 month solicitation clause after temination into effect… even though I had been terminated for 12 months!

They claimed I was only terminated from them from March 2010 when they entered my termination into their system. They would not accept the legal (effective) date on the signed termination form!

They blatantly refused to correct the termination date in their system, however, after months of bullying by Mannatech we mutually agreed on 1 Jan 2010 as the effective end of rights and responsibilites following termination (under extreme duress on my part).

Here’s My Beef

Distributor lists are NOT confidential information owned by the company. They are  JOINTLY OWNED.

MLM companies say they OWN the customer list. No matterwhere it comes from. They say I have no right to use it after I cease being a distributor, even though as part of my business requirement was to build a business network at MY cost.

MLM company customer list and solicitation definitions are too draconian! They do not take into account how a business network develops. They do not even take into account relationships that existed prior to becoming a distributor with thaat company.

A HUGE change is due and I welcome the ruling against Melaleuca (a company with the MOST draconian rules I have ever seen)

I know of an Australian couple who fought Melaleuca for this same reason.. They settled out of court but they were minus $250,000 in legal fees! It apparently cost Melaleuca 10 times that!

MLM companies think that if a distributor (or ex distributor) sends an email promoting another opportunity (MLM or otherwise) to one of their distributors then that distributor will stop producing an income for them.

That is totally false and built totally on fear of loss!

If THAT distributor is so ready to jump to another company/opportunity then so be it. They were not locked in in the first place and ANY opportunity that came along would interest them, from me or otherwise.

I make the comparison to a Catholic talking to a Jew with the intent to being converted to Judaism. If it was meant to happen then let it happen. If not the Catholic will stay with their faith and say thanks but no thanks. Everyone is still happy.

I believe this is how it should be in MLM. Let people make up their own mind and get on with business of seeking and keeping happy customers and ditributors, not trying to hold onto the ones that are not interested anyhow.

That’s my rant for now… I could talk on this topic for hours. I will not bore you with more here so call me to talk to me if this has happened to you or you need advice as to how to proceed if it IS happening to you.

Add your comments!

Amway agrees to pay $56 million, settle case alleging it operates a ‘pyramid scheme’

Source: Mlive.com

Update: Lawyers say their $20 million payment is fair for $100 million settlement in Amway pyramid scheme lawsuit

ADA TOWNSHIP — Amway this morning announced a deal to pay $34 million in cash and provide $22 million worth of products to settle a 2007 class-action suit alleging the company and some of its top-level distributors operate an illegal pyramid scheme.

The proposed settlement filed Wednesday would cover former Amway/Quixtar distributors, whom the company calls independent business owners, between 2003 and the day the settlement is approved.

The suit alleged the company used unfair and illegal business practices that mislead distributors about their ability to make money and how much it would cost to be part of the business.

The case was filed in California in 2007 by former distributors for Quixtar, the name multilevel marketing giant Amway used for its U.S.-based operation at the time.

The settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt, but settlement language says the company “stipulates that certain reforms in its business instituted after the filing of this action have been motivated” by the case.

The deal was announced via a brief press release and an e-mail to Amway employees Wednesday morning.

“The suit contains strong and disagreeable allegations and language that we categorically reject,” the letter from Chairman Steve Van Andel and President Doug DeVos read. “They are sensationalist claims that remain unproven and that we expect will be dismissed by the court.

“Nevertheless, the company and its IBO leaders take responsibility for all past issues, and we take responsibility for fixing them. We regret that the experiences of some IBOs fell short of the high standards that have allowed us to help many people, from all walks of life, start successful businesses for more than 50 years.”

The proposed settlement, which still must be approved by San Francisco U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti, provides:

• Up to $20 million to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys from the $34 million cash fund.

• Up to $5 million from the cash fund to refund registration fees paid by people who did not continue with Quixtar/Amway after their first year.

• Up to $15,000 in payments to some distributors who lost more than $2,500 with Quixtar/Amway.

• Up to $100 worth of Amway products, with shipping costs for those products coming from the cash settlement pool, to former distributors.

The process to apply for the cash and products — or, to opt out of the settlement — will be established if the settlement is approved. A final decision isn’t expected until sometime in early 2011.

In their letter to employees, DeVos and Van Andel said Amway has addressed many of the concerns raised by those who filed the case and others who have criticized the business as being heavily weighted toward finding new recruits and sales of “tools” or “business support materials” such as motivational tapes, books and seminars.

The settlement places the total economic value of the agreement, including the changes to its business model, at $100 million. The settlement also includes a clause that neither side disparage the other.

Among actions the company says it has taken for the independent business owners:

• Tripling investment in IBO education programs.

• Expanding a money-back guarantee to include all products and training materials purchased by IBOs in their first 90 days.

• More than doubling the number of professional trainers teaching best business practices across the country.

• Consumer advertising, improved websites and other efforts to support the business opportunity, enhance IBO success rates and protect consumers from misrepresentation.

• Revised pricing strategies to enhance its competitive position.

“This settlement is our way of attempting to close this chapter,” said Rob Zeiger, Amway spokesman.

“We think the issues presented by that case are old problems. We’re viewing this as a chance to go forward in the U.S. business with a clean slate without litigation like this hanging over our heads anymore.”

The final settlement included an amended complaint that virtually eliminated the phrase “pyramid scheme” from the case.

Amway has long been sensitive about allegations that it operated a pyramid scheme. A 1979 Federal Trade Commission ruling found the company did not operate a pyramid scheme.

The amended complaint, which is expected to be dismissed without the ability for the plaintiff’s to raise the charges again, continues to accuse the company of an “illegal scheme” and racketeering, among other charges.

To The Amway Community,

Today we are announcing settlement terms in a class action lawsuit filed several years ago by three former Quixtar independent business owners (IBOs).

The suit focused on allegations that in past years, our North American business did not always train and support IBOs well enough, and as a result, best business practices were not always followed when promoting the business.

The suit contains strong and disagreeable allegations and language that we categorically reject. They are sensationalist claims that remain unproven and that we expect will be dismissed by the court.

Nevertheless, the company and its IBO leaders take responsibility for all past issues, and we take responsibility for fixing them. We regret that the experiences of some IBOs fell short of the high standards that have allowed us to help many people, from all walks of life, start successful businesses for more than 50 years.

We have not only addressed the issues raised in this case, we have also gone further than settlements and safeguards. In the past few years, we have invested more than $300 million in additional business initiatives to help our IBOs succeed – including many investments that began before this case was filed. We have fundamentally transformed our North American business to offer our IBOs the best possible opportunity to succeed. Some of these efforts include:

• Tripling our company’s investment in IBO education programs;

• Expanding our 100% money-back guarantee to include all products and training materials purchased by IBOs in their first 90 days;

• More than doubling the number of professional trainers we employ to teach best business practices across the country;

• Consumer advertising, improved websites and other efforts to support our business opportunity, enhance IBO success rates and protect consumers from misrepresentation; and

• Revised pricing strategies to enhance our competitive position.

This means that IBOs can launch their businesses with minimal, refundable start-up costs, receive excellent business and sales training, and be safeguarded by a robust satisfaction guarantee and return policy.

Still, we agreed to settle and to compensate the claimants in both money and equivalent product value, as we are confident that we have taken the necessary steps to address these past issues. We want to focus on helping IBOs build healthy businesses for the future, not a long court fight over allegations from the past.

Our founders had a simple philosophy: we start every day determined to make the business better than it was the day before. And in keeping that promise, we can confidently and proudly focus all our attention on offering an excellent business opportunity that is open to all.

Steve Van Andel 
Chairman
Doug DeVos
 President

SKINCERITY^®

SkinCerity from NuCerity is the world’s only patented breathable masque that dramatically improves your skin without changing your regimen.

It is a simple-to-use real medical breakthrough that dramatically improves the health, appearance, softness, and tone of your skin with visible results in just days!

• Rehydrates, Rejuvenates and Repairs
• Rapidly hydrates and nourishes dry skin
• Improves rough, sun-damaged complexions
• Reduces the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles
• Reduces the appearance of enlarged pores
• Diminishes facial redness
• Accelerates healthy cellular turnover
• Can be used on face, hands, neck, chest to prevent the signs of pre-mature aging
• Clinically tested. Dermatologist recommended
• Safe to use on all ages and skin tones

Watch the Videos and be amazed.

More Info from Nucerity

Mike Potillo gives us his version of the business opportunity in audio format. I have extracted this 25:23 piece from the longer Wednesday 16 June conference call recording.

Download The Audio File

Listen to ALL the corporate conference call replays online on the LiveSmart 360 Blog

Got this question for a distributor the other day and thought there might be a few others with the same question rattling around in their heads.

Q: “Hehe, quite honestly, I have no idea what I signed up for…  At first glance it seems like a pyramid scheme of some sort  ;)  So what exactly is the story?  Everyone who signs up tries to sell this stuff and the people above them get a cut?”

A: Firstly, pyramid schemes are illegal. This is NOT a pyramid scheme. The pyramid shape is everywhere. Government, business, animal kingdom etc…

We use high quality nutritional products to improve our health and build a team of people under us who want do the same. A proportion of the sale price (about 50%- not unlike retail shops) is made available as commissions via a compensation plan to those that share this information by “word of mouth” advertising. This is opposed to normal retail that pays its share in rent, advertising, wages etc…

The business we are involved in called Network Marketing does not pay any rent or advertising or wages. They pay us to tell others about what is available.

May I suggest you take a look at a presentation called “Brilliant Compensation”. I will be able to make copy available for you or I can find a link on the web so you can watch an animated version.

“Everyone who signs up tries to sell this stuff and the people above them get a cut?”

Not quite.

People sign up for FREE and buy the product if they choose to. If they like it, they will share it with friends and business contacts.

If you have a group of people who join under you, just like you did, you will receive a commission to help pay for your own purchases. If the group under you keeps growing, the commissions grow. There is no limit to how big it can grow and the commissions that can be earned.

The 360 business at this stage is just a “look and see” for FREE. When you have all the information on the products, prices, compensation plan etc. then you can decide if you want to put your money on the table.

What we have seen so far it is a bit like Microsoft giving us an option to buy shares when their company had not even reached the share market.

Did they think they had a good product? I am sure THEY did.

Will 360 grow like Microsoft?

I am sure Microsoft did not realize that it would do so well at the time.

The same goes for 360.