Sisel Review: An overly complex compensation plan

36 Comments on “Sisel Review: An overly complex compensation plan”

#1

K. Chang

Apr 24th, 2012 at 11:30 pm  K. Chang(Q)

According to Gerald Nehra, if there is no clear separation of customer and member, then it’s a very BAD thing as it means MLM is actually quite close to a PONZI SCHEME. (that’s from his affidavit in the ASD case).

And internal consumption means there is no clear separation: members are customers.



#2

Oz

Apr 25th, 2012 at 8:51 am  Oz(Q)

Sisel actually made a point to state in their compensation plant that everyone pays the same price (retail = wholesale).

They claimed this was to stop stockpiling of products in garages. I took it as a marketing angle to encourage people to sign up as a pref. customer (“it costs nothing so might as well!”)



#3

K. Chang

Apr 25th, 2012 at 9:15 am  K. Chang(Q)

Then frankly they only moved to Switzerland to get away from the FTC and the agreed-upon “Amway rules”. Amway rules require company buyback and “you must have sold this much to reorder” rule to discourage stockpiling / inventory loading by participants.

What’s the difference between a distributor (participant) and a “preferred” customer any way?



#4

Len Clements

May 11th, 2012 at 1:08 am  Len Clements(Q)

oz,

Good recap of Sisel and their history. Well done. Now comes the “However..”.

However, SISEL International, LLC is a Subsidiary of SISEL International, AG and their corporate office is in Springville, UT. Their large manufacturing plant, which is owned outright by Mr. Mower, is also located in Utah.

The large majority of MLM companies employ a “BV”, or Bonus Volume point system today (some call it CV, or Commissionable Volume). There are very legitimate reasons for BV. For example, lower margin (expensive to produce) products typically have a lower BV value to keep the price down. Although some companies abuse their BVs to create the illusion of a higher payout, knowing most prospects will only consider the percentages in the pay plan, and not BV-to-Price ratios. If you lower the BVs on your products you can afford to pay a higher percentage on that BV, thus creating the illusion of a higher paying plan. Sisel does not appear to be doing this.

The FTC has clearly stated (in a letter to the DSA) that they do not consider what percentage of product is purchased by reps, but rather the motive for the purchase. As long as Sisel reps are buying the product because they actually want them, they are bona fide “customers” of the product.

I’m also not a fan of overly complex comp plans. Most today look like pages out of a chemistry text book. However, this appears to have no correlation to the success of a distributor, or that company. In fact, you can almost gauge the success of an MLM company by the complexity of it’s comp plan. There are three today that I cannot fully decipher, and I evaluate and design comp plans for a living. Mary Kay, Amway and Mannatech. Shaklee’s original plan, which they changed a few years ago, would have also made the list. Note, I just listed four of the largest, most successful MLM companies of all time.

It boils down to Marketing 101: Features vs. Benefits. Reps and prospects don’t care how the plan works, and most can’t explain their own plan. They just want to know why it’s better than other plans, and how it’ll make them more money, faster, and with less effort.

I’m not saying that’s right, or how it should be. It’s just the way it is.

Len



#5

K. Chang

May 11th, 2012 at 1:17 am  K. Chang(Q)

So it’s a shell company? I own this which owns that?



#6

Len Clements

May 11th, 2012 at 1:22 am  Len Clements(Q)

That’s clearly not what I said.



#7

K. Chang

May 11th, 2012 at 1:38 am  K. Chang(Q)

Sorry, that was somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek tone.



#8

K. Chang

May 11th, 2012 at 1:48 am  K. Chang(Q)

In a more serious note, FTC had published a comment by Dr. Jon M. Taylor, excerpt from one of his long reports, that specifically looks at MLM compensation models.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/bizoppstaffreport/00014-57319.pdf

Dr. Taylor, along with Robert Fitzpatrick, are well-known “opponents” of MLM model in general, but their analysis is well worth reading.

IMHO, overly complicated comp models tilts the table in favor of the company rather than the participants. When such costs as marketing, training of new participants, and such were ALREADY offloaded to the individual participants, and the participants can’t even really understand HOW MUCH they will get paid for their efforts, it is rather difficult to understand WHY any one would join this field.



#9

Len Clements

May 11th, 2012 at 2:25 am  Len Clements(Q)

The FTC publishes all comments submitted during the public comment period, regardless of source or validity. In this case, Taylor exploited the comment process related to the FTC’s New Business Opportunity Rule to get his anti-MLM propaganda published on the FTC website (MLM companies were ultimately exempted from the NBOR).

Furthermore, neither Taylor nor FitsPatrick are reliable sources of information regarding MLM. For example, both assert (including Taylor within the document you linked to), that Amway’s “70% Rule”, which the FTC considered when ruling Amway a legal business model in 1979, requires all MLM companies to sell at least 70% of their product to non-distributors. This is utterly false. Neither Amway, nor the FTC, has ever interpreted the rule in this manner, but rather as a restriction on purchasing additional inventory if at least 70% of all previous orders had not been sold or consumed — and the FTC specifically considered *sales to other distributors* as a method for meeting this criteria.

Len

P.S. I have written extensive rebuttals to the commentary of Taylor and FitzPatrick, as well as über-MLM critics Dean Van Druff and Ruth Carter, which essentially act as exposés of their MLM ignorance. This point is off topic for this thread, but if Oz wants to link to them I’m sure he knows where to find them. It’s his blog, his call.



#10

K. Chang

May 11th, 2012 at 2:29 am  K. Chang(Q)

I’ve specifically highlighted them as “MLM Opponents”. Neither side is exactly unbiased. FTC is negotiating an interesting path between the two extremes without stifling the industry.

I sense we’re getting a bit off topic. 🙂 So that’s enough from me. 🙂



#11

Len Clements

May 11th, 2012 at 2:43 am  Len Clements(Q)

I agree. Off topic. One last distinction, then you may have the last word. There is a vast difference between being “biased” and being “wrong”. Taylor is not just biased, he states things as a matter of fact that are completely, verifiably, wrong. Furthermore, he has been thoroughly informed of the inaccuracies of his claims, and specifically his depiction of the 70% Rule, supported by historical, legal evidence, yet he *continues* to make the same false claims. That takes them out of the realm of ignorance or “honest mistake” and into that of outright, deliberate deception.



#12

K. Chang

May 11th, 2012 at 3:06 am  K. Chang(Q)

Merely a clarification… The 70% rule is mentioned exactly “once” in that PDF I linked. 🙂 So remember, take THAT section with much skepticism. 😀



#13

K. Chang

May 11th, 2012 at 3:07 am  K. Chang(Q)

(and the rest with healthy doses of skepticism, as you should treat ALL sources of information, even this website and our comments. )



#14

M_Norway

May 11th, 2012 at 5:47 am  M_Norway(Q)

K. Chang:
The 70% rule is mentioned exactly “once” in that PDF I linked.

It was mentioned in section 2-11 (section 2, page 11), and was correct in the context where it was presented.



#15

Len Clements

May 11th, 2012 at 7:01 am  Len Clements(Q)

The 70% Rule as it relates to the FTC and Amway has nothing what-so-ever to do with Webster v. Omnitrition. Furthermore, Taylor has defined the 70% Rule in at least three other places within his mountain of anti-MLM propaganda as:

1) “To avoid FTC action… Distributors must derive at least 70% of their income from retail sales to non-participants” (he’s stated this in two different places), and;

2) specifically in the 1979 FTC v. Amway decision, “Distributors were to sell 70% of the products they purchased each month to non-distributors”.

Robert FitzPatrick has twice (that I have evidence of) misrepresented the 70% Rule in the same way.



#16

Oz

May 11th, 2012 at 7:59 am  Oz(Q)

@Len

It boils down to Marketing 101: Features vs. Benefits. Reps and prospects don’t care how the plan works, and most can’t explain their own plan. They just want to know why it’s better than other plans, and how it’ll make them more money, faster, and with less effort.

I’m not saying that’s right, or how it should be. It’s just the way it is.

As someone who doesn’t fit this mould, if I was considering joining a MLM company not being able understanding the business model would be a huge red flag and quite quickly remove the company from consideration.

And with all due respect to those that do fit the mould you described, if you join a MLM company without thoroughly understanding the compensation plan and greater business model, you are a moron.

As you would be getting involved in any type of business without thoroughly understanding the inner workings of it.



#17

M_Norway

May 11th, 2012 at 8:11 am  M_Norway(Q)

Len Clements:
The 70% Rule as it relates to the FTC and Amway has nothing what-so-ever to do with Webster v. Omnitrition.

He didn’t say so, either.

Amway was not a pyramid scheme, subject to ―retail rules that Amway claimed it would voluntarily enforce.

These rules [they claimed they voluntarily would follow] can be summarized as follows: (1) distributors were to sell or consume 70% of the products they purchased each month (later refined to mean sales to non-partici-pants17),

As I said, “correct within the context it was presented”.

And sorry, I didn’t find the other statements through search. I found one with similar topic in 2-28 “What would a good MLM look like?“, but that one was also correct within the context it was presented.



#18

Len Clements

May 11th, 2012 at 8:30 am  Len Clements(Q)

I can make a very educated guess that about 96% of all network marketers didn’t “thoroughly understanding the compensation plan and greater business model” when they joined an MLM opportunity. About 96% of all network marketers also fail to make a profit in their business.

That’s not a coincidence.

I know several of those “morons” you referred to who have earned in excess of $100,000 per month – by promoting the benefits of their opportunity, not the features.

Some of the top Porsche 911 Turbo salespeople promote the fact their cars go from 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds, and the best Xerox copier salespeople brag that their 4112 model will print 125 pages per minute. I’d bet very few could even begin to explain *how* their product accomplishes this. Why bother to find out when that’s not what their customers want to know?

Len



#19

Oz

May 11th, 2012 at 8:39 am  Oz(Q)

I know several of those “morons” you referred to who have earned in excess of $100,000 per month – by promoting the benefits of their opportunity, not the features.

And they are still morons. Money != intelligence.

They’ll probably be the first to complain loudly if things turn sour too, seeing as they don’t know their own businesses arse backwards.

Some of the top Porsche 911 Turbo salespeople promote the fact their cars go from 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds, and the best Xerox copier salespeople brag that their 4112 model will print 125 pages per minute.

Comparison fail. Neither Porsches or photocopiers in themselves are business opportunities.

Do you honestly think the people running the actual Porsche or Xerox businesses have no idea how their businesses work?

Pull the other one.



#20

K. Chang

May 11th, 2012 at 8:49 am  K. Chang(Q)

*sigh*

Not the same thing, Mr. Clement.

Some of the top Porsche 911 Turbo salespeople promote the fact their cars go from 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds, and the best Xerox copier salespeople brag that their 4112 model will print 125 pages per minute. I’d bet very few could even begin to explain *how* their product accomplishes this. Why bother to find out when that’s not what their customers want to know?

We’re not talking about selling of objects or service, are we, Mr. Clement?

If you sell [uber-fruit] juice the only message you need to say is “it’s good for you”, everything else is to “prove” that.

In your example, 911 turbo has great 0-60 time, but that fact is to prove it’s a “great car (for you)”. Thus, the details on HOW the car works (launch control, limited slip dif, sticky tires…) is not important. There are lots of reasons to buy a fast car, could be prestige, could be image, could be impress the girl(s), whatever. It’s a selling point, but it’s not *the* selling point.

But when we are talking about comp plans, do the same reasoning really apply? The guy promoting the opportunity is touting it as “Great for you”, so the conversation roughly goes like this:

A: “Opportunity ____ is great for you!”
B: “How it is great for me?”
A: “It makes you a lot of money.”
B: “Uh, how will it make me a lot of money? What do I have to do?”

Not exactly the same conversation, is it?

I suspect the “great salespeople” you cited manage to emphasize all the OTHER reasons to join, with the comp plan being a MINOR sales point. But does that make sense, when one is looking for an INCOME OPPORTUNITY?



#21

M_Norway

May 11th, 2012 at 8:58 am  M_Norway(Q)

Len Clements:
2) specifically in the 1979 FTC v. Amway decision, “Distributors were to sell 70% of the products they purchased each month to non-distributors”.

This rule makes perfectly sense if you consider MLM to be an income opportunity. With a high percentage of “distributor customers” instead of “retail customers”, the participants (as a group) will spend more money than they earn.

A low percentage of retail customers can indicate the products aren’t very retailable, there’s a flaw in the business model. Products should be possible to sell without adding an income opportunity to them.



#22

K. Chang

May 11th, 2012 at 9:07 am  K. Chang(Q)

Let me make a side comment, before this goes into a flame zone (and I hope it does not). There’s a bit of background info if you don’t know the industry.

I consider Len Clements to be a straight shooter, as I have read many of his papers, and he covers stuff as he sees it. However, Mr. Clements, with his LONG experience network marketing, has a pro-Network Marketing bias. As a result, he, and other proponents of MLM, have had long standing… verbal spars against Dr. Taylor and Robert Fitzpatrick regarding the MLM industry.

I have corresponded with Mr. Fitzpatrick and I found him to be honest and coherent, but extreme in his opposition of MLM. I do NOT agree with his stance that all MLMs are illegal frauds, but I understand WHY he would think so.

And I understand how Mr. Clements believe network marketing is a perfectly valid method of marketing (with the caveat: if done legally and properly) and people who are diametrically opposed to it (such as Taylor and fitzpatrick) are fanatics.

I, as a complete amateur who studied the industry by studying the SCAMS that plague the industry (such as TVI Express), would like to propose a truce. Study evidence on both sides, and reach your own conclusions… somewhere else.

This is really for discussion about Sisel.

And I repeat my position: overly complicated comp plans tilts the whole thing in the company’s favor, by forcing reps promoting the opportunity, who don’t really understand the comp plan, to emphasize other factors as selling points, instead of the most important; how do I make money? What do I have to do?



#23

Len Clements

May 11th, 2012 at 9:31 am  Len Clements(Q)

M_Norway: He didn’t say so, either.

As I said, “correct within the context it was presented”.

And sorry, I didn’t find the other statements through search. I found one with similar topic in 2-28 “What would a good MLM look like?“, but that one was also correct within the context it was presented.

It was not “correct within the context it was presented”. Amway’s 70% Rule has NEVER been “refined” in any way, by anyone. Once again, the Omnitrition decision had nothing what-so-ever to do with the 70% Rule.

I can source all the statements made by Taylor in their proper context by linking to the documents he produced with the offending text highlighted, but this would require links to the document archive section of my MarketWave website. I’ll post these links with Oz’s permission.

Len



#24

K. Chang

May 11th, 2012 at 9:38 am  K. Chang(Q)

And I’d like to present a word from Gerald Nehra, MLM atty

Regulatory agencies in the United States and in other countries have interpreted laws and regulations to mean that some percentage of sales of a direct selling company (that also has a multilevel form of compensation) must be to persons outside of the program.

The two most common actual numbers are “more than 50 percent” or “70 percent.” The 70 percent number coincides with the 70 percent rule from the Federal Trade Commission versus Amway case decided in 1979 in the United States, although the linkage and reference is incorrect.

A careful reading of the Amway case will reveal that “70 percent,” wherever it appeared, appeared in the context of a prohibition against inventory loading, rather than as a retail sales requirement “outside the program.”

So, yes, Taylor/Fitzpatrick was correct in stating that SOME regulatory agencies use the 70% rule as meaning “70% must sell to retail”. However, he was wrong in tracing the lineage/origin to the FTC vs. Amway decision.

Can we go back to Sisel now?



#25

Len Clements

May 11th, 2012 at 9:54 am  Len Clements(Q)

Oz:
Comparison fail. Neither Porsches or photocopiers in themselves are business opportunities.

Do you honestly think the people running the actual Porsche or Xerox businesses have no idea how their businesses work?

Pull the other one.

K. Chang:
*sigh*

Not the same thing, Mr. Clement.

We’re not talking about selling of objects or service, are we, Mr. Clement?

Of course they are not the “same”. They are analogous.

When someone tells a prospect that their “Fast Start Bonus” can get you into profit with fewer than 5 people (analogous to a car going 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds), the prospect typically doesn’t care how the FSB does that. Nor do they really care what the mathematical algorithms are to:

1) earning overrides “down 6 generations”;
2) a 50% matching bonus, or;
3) a car bonus.

They just want to know:

1) They’re going to get paid deeper, thus on potentially a lot more people;
2) If they enroll a high earning superstar they’re going to get paid part of what he/she get’s paid, and;
3) They can earn a BMW to show off.

We’ve migrated way off the topic of Sisel, and I think our points have been made. Other than Oz’s response to my posting of Taylor’s statements regarding the 70% Rule, I am bowing out of the discussion.

Thanks, guys. It’s always fun to mix it up a bit without someone resorting to personal attacks.

Len



#26

Oz

May 11th, 2012 at 10:20 am  Oz(Q)

@Len

Of course they are not the “same”.

Great, so let’s not waste our time trying to compare the two then. Understanding a business model of a company you are going to join as a business owner has nothing to do with understanding how a photocopier or car works as a consumer.

Regarding further discussion of the 30/70 rule, if it’s within the context of Sisel then by all means go ahead.

Legally or otherwise I maintain that as a general rule of thumb having a company able to show that 70% (I’ll even accept over 50%), of it’s purchased product is being purchased by genuine retail non-member customers is a great indicator of the long-term stability and legitimacy of the company, the product(s) and its business model.

MLM should first and foremost be about the sale of products and/or services to customers, not about how close you can rig a business model mathematically to appear not to be a scam despite any dubiousness of your business model as a whole (and I say that in general, without making reference to any one company in particular).



#27

M_Norway

May 11th, 2012 at 10:35 am  M_Norway(Q)

@Len Clements

Have you ever tried “2 in 1 pictures”, the pictures with two different pictures in one. Some of the most well-known is “What’s on a man’s mind?”, “Old lady / young lady” and “vase / 2 faces in profile”.

If you have tried some of them, you should know you’ll have to “unfocus” from the first image to be able to see the second.

I can clearly see both your image and mine.

Len Clements:
It was not “correct within the context it was presented”

1. I will agree, the Amway rule has never been refined.
2. Yet, it can still be possible for people to consider the Webster vs Omnitrition to be some sort of refinement of the Amway rule.



#28

K. Chang

May 11th, 2012 at 11:07 am  K. Chang(Q)

Len Clements:
When someone tells a prospect that their “Fast Start Bonus” can get you into profit with fewer than 5 people (analogous to a car going 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds), the prospect typically doesn’t care how the FSB does that. Nor do they really care what the mathematical algorithms are to:

1) earning overrides “down 6 generations”;
2) a 50% matching bonus, or;
3) a car bonus.

They just want to know:

1) They’re going to get paid deeper, thus on potentially a lot more people;
2) If they enroll a high earning superstar they’re going to get paid part of what he/she get’s paid, and;
3) They can earn a BMW to show off.

But shouldn’t they know WHAT THEY NEED TO DO to earn these great bonuses? i.e.

Do A, get B?

Doesn’t a overly complicated plan distract from that?

Or is the point simply to emphasize, much like the lottery pushing “get your dream”, even though the chance of getting the jackpot is like 100 million to one? (and with an overcomplicated comp plan the chance is “unknown”, because you don’t even know how to get it?)

At least with lottery the “how” is simple: buy more tickets. What about the comp plan’s “how”?



#29

M_Norway

May 11th, 2012 at 6:00 pm  M_Norway(Q)

Len Clements:
I can make a very educated guess that about 96% of all network marketers didn’t “thoroughly understanding the compensation plan and greater business model” when they joined an MLM opportunity.

You’re right.

A sales-man will usually not need any deep insight into what he’s selling, but how much insight he will need depends on what he’s selling and to which customers.

Usually it’s more important to know WHY the customers buy the products, being able to identify different sets of motives rather than the technical details for the products. Most of us are looking for “solutions to something”, or the expected result of what we’re buying, what we believe the product will do for us.

A technician will need deep insight into the technical details, but a sales-man will only need it if the customers are technicians or something similar, or if he sells something that really needs to be explained using technical details.

People who buys an income opportunity will be far more interested in how much money they possibly can make, and what’s required of them to make it. As customers, they are usually eager to sign the contract if they believe the opportunity is right for them, “if they can make it” in the opportunity.

I have the impression that most of the “customers” only looks at specific parts of the compensation plans, and ignores other parts.

But the focus on recruitment is also why most MLM/NWM will have problems when it comes to retail customers. Selling products to retail customers will usually require other methods than selling opportunities to income opportunity seekers.



#30

Dani Walker

Jul 15th, 2012 at 12:35 am  Dani Walker(Q)

I was just informed of this post and after taking the time to read all including comments I would like to thank you all for your insight and give a little as well.

Specific to Sisel’s “overly complicated” comp plan: what you have to do to qualify for bonuses (and I am talking the least you have to do to completely qualify).

1. Consume at least $50 worth of product monthly (to move up In commission rank from bronze at $50 a month to platinum at $200 distributor either orders more product personally or has preferred customers combined orders are $150 or more) in other words with this plan your customers orders help qualify you for commissions.

2. The wider you go the deeper you get paid but the first 5 levels (45% of the 67% in this bonus) on the direct distributor bonus are paid if you only have 1 distributor.

3. Attain master distributor by building a team that produces $1000 in monthly sales in your first 30 days or $5000 over any amount of time.

4. You have to HELP people to move up in rank after this. Which in my opinion is a great way to weed out the greedy from the professional who really understands what MLM is all about. To move up in MD rank you help your business partners become Master distributors as well.

The Sisel comp plan is a bit daunting at first but show me one that is not. Lem is right when he says the majority of people want benefits over features.

We all know those making $100 k a month came to understand the comp plan whether it was the first time they saw it or not their success had less to do with understanding the plan and more to do with having tenacious passion and diligence. Something most people could use more of.

If you really want the “features” of Sisel’s comp plan…. here are a few.

1. No coded bonuses

2. No binary

3. No breakage using dynamic compression

4. Sisel gives an error allowance – if you miss a qualification they allow you to use your error allowance and qualify. (there is no other company I am aware of that does this, I am sure someone will inform me otherwise)

5. For 2 consecutive months after becoming an MD the monthly qualification volume goes from $1000 to $500. Again to help the new person with a small team qualify and build a solid business.

There are more like the infinity bonus being an additional 5% to infinity but for now these features are proof that Sisel’s plan (even though complicated like the rest) is created for the distributor and not the corporation.

In short these are some facts about Sisel’s comp plan for those truly researching and some opinions from myself and everyone else who wrote and commented on this post…nothing more…nothing less.

To our success, Dani



#31

Oz

Jul 15th, 2012 at 6:45 am  Oz(Q)

If you join a company without understanding the compensation plan, you have failed a primary aspect of thorough due diligence, regardless of whether you make any money or not.

As someone who goes over 5 or so different compensation plans a week, I wholly stand by my original sentiment that Sisel’s compensation plan is unnecessarily complicated. Confusing your distributors is so 1990s and Sisel could do huge favours for themselves if they redid their comp plan (or worked out a better way to present it).

Case in point, your examples might mean something to MLM veterans familiar with comp plan terminology but it means buckleys to a newcomer. Try explaining Sisel’s comp plan to that demographic… wait, let me grab some popcorn first so I can enjoy the show.



#32

K. Chang

Jul 15th, 2012 at 9:08 am  K. Chang(Q)

Overly complicated comp plan leads you to explain the “goodies” instead of the journey, thus distorting the overall picture.

There are PLENTY of comp plans that are simple. The more complicated the plan, the more it is probably tilted in the company’s favor.



#33

Dani Walker

Feb 22nd, 2013 at 12:43 pm  Dani Walker(Q)

Oz: If you join a company without understanding the compensation plan, you have failed a primary aspect of thorough due diligence, regardless of whether you make any money or not.

As someone who goes over 5 or so different compensation plans a week, I wholly stand by my original sentiment that Sisel’s compensation plan is unnecessarily complicated. Confusing your distributors is so 1990s and Sisel could do huge favours for themselves if they redid their comp plan (or worked out a better way to present it).

Case in point, your examples might mean something to MLM veterans familiar with comp plan terminology but it means buckleys to a newcomer.

Try explaining Sisel’s comp plan to that demographic… wait, let me grab some popcorn first so I can enjoy the show.

Enjoy the show and know that I was one of the 96% who did not understand the comp plan in 3 companies I got involved with.

The first 2 I failed in. The 3rd (SISEL) I build proudly & successfully regardless of anyone’s opinion of the comp plan.

I add this post to inform everyone that SISEL has actually updated and simplified the comp plan https://live.mysisel.com/cms/ROOT/cms-complan/CompPlanJan2013.pdf

I would love to read a days worth of responses to each of your opinions on this new plan.

I will grab some popcorn and anxiously await your constructive & biased opinions. We all have them. Cheers.



#34

K. Chang

Feb 22nd, 2013 at 1:50 pm  K. Chang(Q)

Dani Walker: The 3rd (SISEL) I build proudly & successfully regardless of anyone’s opinion of the comp plan.

So how did you explain the comp plan? Or you didn’t bother?



#35

Oz

Feb 22nd, 2013 at 2:13 pm  Oz(Q)

I had a quick look at the PDF, still looks as confusing as ever.

I’ll go over it sometime in the next few weeks and see if there’s enough changes to warrant a new comp plan review.

What is it with January and MLM company’s rewriting their comp plans? The work never ends around here!



#36

Brian Ski

Jun 12th, 2018 at 8:25 am  Brian Ski(Q)

Charles Scoville (as he awaits his fate with the SEC) is involved with this now.

signup.sisel.net/en-gb/products-gb/