Summary of the ACCC Lyoness 5-day trial
Last Friday saw the conclusion of a five day trial which saw Lyoness defend pyramid scheme allegations, brought about by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
At the conclusion of the trial Justice Flick reserved judgement. And while I had hoped we might see a judgement handed down this week or the next, it’s been revealed his decision is not expected till around the end of the month.
What we can provide you in the meantime though is a brief summary of the proceedings as they occurred.
As per a source who attended all five days of the trial;
- None of the defendants attended the trial despite Werner Kaiser being in Australia conducting meetings in various locations.
- Lyoness’ office is only 5 minutes walk from the Federal Court Of Australia yet Lyoness also failed to appear.
- The matter was run by Lyoness legal representation of 2 barristers and staff from the legal firm only.
- ACCC evidence showed that 1933 Australian Consumers become Premium Members prior to April 2012, yet Lyoness denied business activities prior to April 2012 in their defence statement.
- The ACCC put forward no evidence of any Lyoness member that ever topped up the full amount of the $3000 down payment in respect to Premium Memberships.
- The ACCC asserted that down payments have “no economic value”.
- Andy Hansen & his Global Go Getters Team were front and centre to the promotion of Lyoness from September 2011 onwards.
- The ACCC seized documents by way of Executed Search Warrant on Lyoness Australia Office in Sydney in September 2013, those documents revealed that Lyoness was mainly looking to recruit Premium Members.
That last point is in line with Lyoness CEO Hubert Freidl, who previously acknowledged Lyoness is about direct acquisition of AU positions over shopping.
- Upon discovery Lyoness had no response to what were the member benefits of Australian residence that paid $3000 down payments for Premium Memberships prior to April 2012.
- ACCC evidence showed that up until March 2012 the master records showed no cashback recorded indicating that no shopping activity took place, Lyoness disputed the records.
- ACCC evidence showed no sales activity with small to medium-sized enterprises prior to January 2013.
- ACCC evidence showed 54,000 Lyoness members as at October 2013.
- ACCC evidence showed only 12 people achieved $30,000 in spending in 2013.
- ACCC showed evidence of an email correspondence between Andy Hansen “Global Go Getters” and Steffen Muller “Lyoness Managing Director of Asia”, approving an updated membership application and a process to continue to register Australian Consumers to join Lyoness. Hansen’s email confirms some 1500 Premium Memberships, Muller advises not to circulate the documents outside of Hansen’s circle as a warning that the pre-launch activities could create problems for Lyoness. In Lyoness’s statement of claim Lyoness denies activities prior to April 2012.
- The inducements of Lyoness advertising campaigns were by Lyoness would distribute an equal portion of 1 million customers to the first 500 Premium Members was tendered in the affidavit of John O’Neil (Lyoness Premium Member). The 1 million customers were promised to achieve 3 Lyoness shopping units each, these representations were made in Hansen’s Official Lyoness Pre-Launch Webinar Presentations as part of the 4 phase launch of Lyoness in Australia.
Till Justice Flick publishes a decision on the matter later this month, stay tuned…
Update 14th October 2015 – After almost three long months, a judgement date has now been set for the 23rd of October.
andy hansen moved on from lyoness in 2013 to launch a similar business called Aspire Worldwide, which is also under ACCC investigation currently.
hansen must have made lyoness a lot of money recruiting premium members from australia since 2011, and may have decided to start his own ‘baby’lyoness and keep all the money for himself.
i’m just worried that since hansen is no longer with lyoness, and lyoness is shrugging off any association with him, how strong the ACCC’s case will be, about lyoness recruiting illegally in australia before 2012.
As I understand it Lyoness have gone on the record to claim there was no Lyoness business activity in Australia prior to 2012.
Yet as per the ACCC’s filings, recruitment of Premium affiliates was in full-swing, despite there being absolutely no shopping activity taking place (zero merchants).
So what were pre-2012 affiliates buying positions for?
You know the answer. I know the answer. Lyoness knows the answer… Hopefully Justice Flick can work it out too.
hopefully justice flick shouldn’t end up like Norway did and say something stupid like – oh, they were illegal last year, but they’re legal this year!
i hope that besides pointing to lyoness australia’s illegal activity prior to 2012, the ACCC have made a strong case for how inspite of ‘shopping’ commencing in 2013, the commissions are paid chiefly from recruitment money.
i cant even imagine the state of the ACCC team right now, siting on their hands, waiting for judge flick to decide! phew.
Cant see Lyoness legal any year – they’re just hiding the truth.
Don’t get it..
I suspect it means that the down payments are only redistributed amongst the participants.
No economic value means you drop money on positions, with those positions in and of themselves holding no economic value.
This is important within the context of ascertaining what exactly affiliates are paying for (positions which pay a ROI once enough subsequent positions of no economic value have been invested in).
The investors don’t get anything of value in exchange for the money. The opportunity to earn commissions doesn’t have any retailable value in itself, i.e. it’s not a commercial product or service.
The money people pay in will of course have value.
Monetary transactions are about “exchange of value”. People will simply need to get an equal amount of value from Lyoness to make the transaction legitimate. The transaction hasn’t been fully completed before they have received some value in exchange.
If Lyoness can’t provide that value, it will need to cancel the transaction and return the money to the rightful owners.
Thanks, folks, for the effort you put into explanation, of course this part I understand, just was wondering what “asserted” word means in that case… 😛
Asserted? Asserted means declared, or said. Its the expression of an opinion.
My understanding is that Hansen was trying to capture Australia by jumping the gun and somehow signing people up in advance of Lyoness even operating there.
Since Lyoness wasn’t even open there he tried to capture that market by coming up with some other way to get them signed up and under him. Of course there was no infrastructure in place by the company so there were no merchants at that time it was all premature.
There are a lot of merchants and lots of shopping there now but when Hansen pulled this scheme it was not in place so no wonder there were problems; I think the people should be most upset at him.
Is there? From what I gather Lyoness/Lyconet is dead in Australia.
As for blaming Hansen, he used Lyoness systems and they turned a blind eye? From a regulatory standpoint MLM companies are responsible for what they let their affiliates get away with.
Hansen was bringing in the account units and keeping those ROIs coming. Lyoness took the money and didn’t ask any questions…
I don’t know firsthand but I’ve heard there are local merchants and online shops, too.
I don’t know too much but I do know Lyoness didn’t open in Australia until after Hansen was doing things for whatever it’s worth.
I’m just taking that thought further and as I said there were not open stores yet. But some people understand the value of getting in early and I’m sure a lot of those people knew it was super brand-new.
To then complain there were no stores is crazy because they joined before there were stores and I’ll bet they thought it was an advantage! They wanted to be in first.
If Australians have signed up they’re doing business there. A message from Lyoness corporate stating “we’re open” doesn’t count for much.
Any why is that?
Why did they join? If Lyoness is about shopping, how is “getting in early” and dumping thousands of dollars in Account Units advantageous?
Part of the business is to sign up merchants who give out the Lyoness cards to their customers. The merchant and the person who sign up the merchant make a little percentage of the shopping being done by the customers.
If you are the first in your town to bring in a merchant, and that merchant tells other merchants and so on you could have most of the town in your downline and as they shop you can make a little piece of a lot of that shopping.
Not the profitable side of the business.
All you have to do is dump thousands of dollars in AUs and recruit others who do the same.
I don’t know how Hansen signed up people before the country was actually open.
I heard he signed them up with a UK address; I think that’s where he was from but I don’t know for sure that’s just heresay.
The units pay because when people shop units are created. Shopping at merchants creates units because part of what is paid by the merchant to Lyoness is allocated for that.
More shopping = more units. If you have units in the system ahead of the new ones you can get paid on the other people’s shopping too.
You sign up, invest directly in AUs and get paid to recruit others who do the same.
All money is paid to and from Lyoness. What shopping?
Oz this is where we disagree. The business is about shopping; you never ever acknowledge any little speck about that.
Your opinion/your take/ is always on the downpayments to create units up front which is one possibility for someone and not a requirement and that is a fact.
You are entitled to your opinion though. But you shouldn’t disregard the fact that there are a lot of people who’s focus is on bringing in the merchants, who want more customers and also can make money on their customers’ shopping outside their store; it is profitable even if you don’t create units any other way but via your own shopping.
Lyoness just signed up a large soccer team in Austria and they’re giving cards to all the spectators who then go to a local merchant to get their physical card and will get cashback when they shop.
No mention/no caring about the downpayments; in fact I’ll bet a lot of merchants don’t know/care about that part of the business; getting customers is the focus.
Mate Lyoness has never been about shopping. Herbert Friedl even said so (paraphrasing: “Anybody can shop, it’s all about the (AU investment) positions!”).
You invest in AUs, recruit others who do the same and get paid. All funds are deposited and paid out by Lyoness.
And it’s the only possibility for anyone who made decent money in Lyoness.
Everybody else lost money buying into the whole shopping schtick.
I mean really, Lyoness was generating commissions in Australia when there were no merchants (through AU investment and recruitment).
You think the behavior of those initial investors changed after Lyoness “launched” in Australia?
Nobody is spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars required. It’s far easier to just invest a few thousand and recruit others who do the same.
From the few merchants we’ve seen comment on BehindMLM, all they do is hand out Lyoness cards to their customers and hope they sign up as a premium affiliates (to push their own AUs along).
Show me one Lyoness top earner who didn’t invest in AUs and recruit others who did the same. Just one.
If you are sincerely asking “what shopping” and you truly don’t know about that, why not go to lyoness.com and see what’s up in your country?
I get money back (and create units) when I buy things I’m already buying. I book hotel rooms through hotels.com and get Lyoness benefits.
I buy my contact lenses, groceries, gasoline, and we have numerous local restaurants I’ve been to and gotten Lyoness benefits. That’s what the business is really about long-term. It’s free to get a card and benefit.
I’ve been following Lyoness for years son. But uh yeah, if you can’t refute facts – just claim the other person doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
I mean I’m sure Norway found Lyoness to be operating as a pyramid scheme because everyone was shopping.
Ditto the ACCC. Hell, why are these regulators so against shopping?
And that’s fine, but if you want to make money in the business opportunity you need to invest and recruit others who do the same.
If Lyoness was ever about shopping, why run the AU investment scheme to begin with?
Don’t worry chief, you’ll work it out eventually.
The merchants from what I’ve seen don’t even make downpayments; they care about shopping, more customers and more business, and certainly not having their customers put money into the system. Can you imagine a restaurant pitching their customers like that? That’s a crazy assertion Oz.
I’ve seen you quote Freidl with that before…no context and of course that makes all the difference mate; who was he talking to and in what context? You know you cannot just take a phrase like that and then say this is their business without more information.
Anyway, the fact is there are merchants who have given out hundreds and even thousands of cards to their customers. Do you really think they’re somehow telling their customers about AUs and being a premium? I heard there’s one in Canada who has given out 5000.
I don’t know who you’ve had here but as I said most of the merchants don’t even know about that part; that’s the back-end part of the business, not for shoppers nor merchants.
Most of the top earners from what I gather are building their businesses finding others who want to maximize their efforts, thus premium members. It’s not a requirement to build the business, it’s simply an option. Shopping is the long-term focus.
If you say (sincerely) “what shopping?” and you don’t know there are over 40,000 merchants what can I say except that you must not know what you’re talking about (your words).
The ones who make any money in Lyoness do (or did to get started).
It’s not an assertion chief, go and read the comments we have from Lyoness merchants. They give the cards away to customers they pitch Lyoness on (in the hope they’ll drop $$$ on AUs).
It’s a numbers game for them.
Blahblahblah – They invested thousands of dollars and recruit others who do the same – blabblahblah.
The only option if you want to make actual money in Lyoness. All the Lyoness top-earners have done so via the AU investment scheme.
You want to compare shopping revenue with AU investment?
With all the top-earners generating commissions through direct AU investment and recruitment of those who do the same, whatever token shopping cashback enters Lyoness is a complete non-factor.
And that’s why two of Australia’s biggest retailers dumped Lyoness…
So you’re saying that a businessman or woman is going to join Lyoness, not for the reason to get more customers for their business, but because it can create a forum of some kind to pitch their customers on making downpayments?
Why not? They can run the AU investment scheme on the side and make some money in addition to their business. Getting people to invest in AUs has no impact on their other business, and the business is a source of leads to pitch AU investment on.
Legit retailers who aren’t interested in pitching their customers dump Lyoness once they realize what really drives the business.
Why the $30,000 number? Who spends that kind of money on anything but a car? I can create a unit from about $2000 of purchases, and even if I don’t care about that part I still get actual cash back on each purchase regardless of how much I spend. I go to a restaurant I like and spend $50 and get my food and get back another couple bucks through Lyoness by showing my free card EVERY TIME. Who doesn’t like free money?
I can see why a couple of retailers left because of the controversy. I can also see others joining once this case is over regardless.
AUs aren’t going to mature if you go by a snickers bar from 7-11.
Which needs tens (hundreds?) of thousands of subsequent shopping funds just to push one persons AU through. Or someone can just invest a few thousand and push them through by recruiting others who do the same.
And a few months later… “why aren’t I making any money?”
“Well you always make downpayments to speed things up…” And so it goes.
They left well before the ACCC announced their case.
And there was plenty of time for others to jump on board before the ACCC action was announced.
Yet nobody did. Why? Because Lyoness is clearly all about shopping.
that’s far more lucrative than having to give a discount isn’t it? people aren’t ‘making money’ getting paltry discounts shopping.
there is absolutely no way you are getting minimum 20% back. I don’t believe it would even be 5%. Especially only spending %50.
Therein lies your problem
As is clearly shown by the figures in the ACCC report, what a singular “I” does or a small number of “I” do is not representative of what the the majority of Lyoness users “are” doing and “can” do
5% of $50 is…uh…ten cents? No, wait…45 cents? No…how about “couple bucks” i.e. $2.50. Yeah NO WAY can I get THAT kind of money back from a merchant. Lyoness is so full of it…idiot. Some of you guys just say crap without even giving anything the first thought.
Couple thousand people each spending $100 a month…that’s $200,000 a month in shopping volume in your group…do the math people. That can move through whatever units you have in the system.
Excuse me while I eat some leftovers from a Lyoness Italian restaurant I bought from a few days ago. They got my business, I got a “few bucks” and a delicious meal from a place I’d never been to.
By the way this merchant says he’s made sales in excess of $100,000 to Lyoness customers…THAT’S why he’s in Lyoness.
Rather than get thousands of people to stop at stores they wouldn’t otherwise shop at, it’s easier to just invest money and recruit others who do the same.
Far more profitable too, as the shopping units created that month will need thousands more to mature and so on and so forth.
Oh and you can’t generate the high-income ROIs by spending $100s a month. The top tier AU category required significant shopping to generate a ROI, or just recruit people who directly invest.
But naturally won’t prove anything, or likely disclose how much he’s made from getting people to directly invest in AUs.
People in ponzi schemes never lie or mislead people (intentionally or otherwise). This is fact.
The marketing rhetoric has never aligned with what actually happens in Lyoness, that being people invest funds with Lyoness directly and then get paid a ROI once enough people do the same.
Yet we still get people coming on here crapping on about shopping. And so it has been for years now.
No matter what anyone says you spout BS about no shopping or shopping not being important or IDK.
The merchant has increased his RESTAURANT business in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.because of Lyoness. I don’t even know nor care about whether he has any AUs or not, it’s irrelevant and it make no difference to the thousands of customers who buy his food.
40,000+ merchants in the company. Anyone in the know understands you are not honest in your statements about Lyoness because a few MILLION shoppers don’t even know anything nor care about AUs.
There’s nothing “BS” about earning in Lyoness.
All the top earners invested thousands of dollars and recruited others who did the same.
These investors, particularly merchants, will tell you what you want to hear, all the while pushing AU investment onto you on the backend.
Of course you don’t. It’s much easier to participate in denial and believe the pseudo-compliance those looking to recruit you will regurgitate.
An entirely irrelevant statistic. What would be relevant is how much revenue has entered Lyoness from shopping through them, contrasted with direct AU investment.
Good luck getting that information out of Lyoness.
And given they generate peanut revenue into Lyoness, are irrelevant.
Shopping does not cancel out or justify the AU investment scheme. The sooner you realize this the clearer Lyoness’ business model becomes.
so, hansen was signing up australian reps with a UK address, and lyoness had No Idea?
so, when lyoness realized what hansen was up to, why didn’t they throw him out and refund all the money collected from australian reps?
since there was no lyoness infrastructure or shopping in australia at that point, on what basis did lyoness keep that money or continue with the downlines created by hansen?
throwing hansen under the bus is a good idea no doubt, but lyoness can hardly evade responsibility for what it allowed to happen. and as far as i’ve read, lyoness always starts its entry into a market by selling AU’s and then the merchants are slowly tied up.
it starts as a pyramid scheme and continues as one, with some blather about shopping added on for psuedo legitimacy.
Math doesn’t lie: at average match of maybe, what, 2-3% per purchase, generating serious AU will take tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of purchases.
Much easier to just BUY the AU… and convince others to do the same.
Shopping is optional, as long as you can buy the AUs. And why would a shopping network, as Lyoness claimed to be, DISCOURAGE shopping?
Just for the record – they were refusing one to become Lyoness Merchant if he/she did not become Premium Partner (AU investor) first.
That’s how Lyoness does it or did it.
That’s what the “marketing campaign” in the Eric Breiteneder case was about. Existing Premium Members in Austria could invest in a “marketing campaign” when Lyoness “opened a new market” (pre-prelaunch), where the primary purpose was to recruit local leaders (among merchants) in that new market, “organize it locally”.
That’s how they did it in Norway too. The first questions to the Gaming Board came in 2011, but after that nothing seemed to happen before a year later. The local organization seemed to be dormant for more than a year, it only had a few merchants as members.
I can probably get redacted copies (or short descriptions) of those first letters to the Gaming Board.
“Marketing campaign investment” is about investments in Premium memberships in that new market, a standard $3,000 investment or higher amount ($3,600 / $7,200 / $10,800 including gift cards).
When I checked Lyoness Norway in 2013, it had appr. 60 merchants locally in Norway (according to the “Find merchant” list).
I checked 20 samples in 2013:
* 10 international merchants, ID 44xxxxxx
* 10 local Norwegian merchants, ID 45xxxxxx
ID: 45300488 (Norwegian)
ID: 45300632 (Norwegian)
ID: 449000073 (International)
ID: 449000070 (International)
ID: 449000067 (International)
ID: 309000113 (International, but of a different type)
So if the local Australian leader was recruited by someone from the UK, it’s simply “normal Lyoness practice”. It’s exactly how Lyoness have operated in other countries too.
Wow! Australia must be the only country where the people really do their “shopping” via Lyoness/Lyconet.
Here in the US, they are closing offices, none of the affiliates are earning any money from “shopping” or from the people in their downline “shopping.”
Attendance at rah-rah meetings is pathetic compared to just a year ago. You could almost fit everyone who was at the last marketing meeting in a phone booth at a local event. They used to fill a large room with attendee’s.
Guess the Aussie’s need to come to teach the Yanks how to do it. Maybe Lyoness/Lyconet could re-open all the US Offices they have closed if they did.
Now what was that again about how Lyoness is all about the “shopping?”
Meetings are certainly de-emphasized because much of the explanations are online so who needs to go to a meeting?
The company is consolidating offices which makes sense.
If you do listen to the people who are teaching Lyoness to people it is all about shopping and how to connect your shopping to that of other people’s around the world.
They closed offices because most of the affiliates have left. Many cannot even access their back office unless they are at a specific level, and no-one wants to pay to get to that level for zero return.
NO-ONE is getting paid from SHOPPING or from RECRUITING. THERE IS NO SHOPPING HAPPENING. Get it now?
That’s how they did it in Australia, according to “Andrew” (video link found in another thread).
He joined Lyoness in January 2012 as a UK member (pre pre-launch). Money was sent to Austria, and the paperwork was sent to the UK. So he first became a UK premium member under a UK sponsor.
I will GUESS that Andrew is some type of merchant himself, but he didn’t clearly identify his own role.
For anyone to say there is no shopping happening is simply UNTRUE and whoever is saying something like that is full of it.
For example in Southern Oregon there are over 300 local merchants who are sharing all the Lyoness customers there.
A few weeks ago corporate came for the weekend and the events were packed and everyone was shopping at all the different merchants; restaurants, hair salons, local gas stations, hotels, I mean everything you can think of.
Same is true in little towns like Salmon Arm BC…same thing. In Dallas, in California, Detroit, Minneapolis, Miami and many other places there is a lot of shopping as the company has local merchant networks growing.
I’ve spoken to merchants and many of them are very happy with the increased business due to new customers and repeat customers due to Lyoness. This is an important part of the story; people DO shop at Lyoness merchants. Now that IS a fact.
The fact is also they would need to shop for 50 years spending all they can to redeem money downpayed and trapped in AU scheme.
From your review of the 5 day trial it seems the Lawyers for Lyoness just sat their in silence and had nothing to say. What type of completely biased commentary is this?
Did Lyoness have anything to say? Did their lawyers give a rebuttal or just played dead and billed their client for nothing. Let us hear from your spies in the court.
And that’s the info I was given. If there’s anything more to Lyoness’ appearance at the trial I haven’t heard anything at this time.
It seems they were active in a way that is typical for Lyoness – denying the obvious:
I basically brought in all of Medford Oregon that you are speaking about and my paychecks are less than $400. a month.
There is no money in the business side of Lyoness and all the VIP leaders have gone back to work because they need to make their mortgage payments.
The business model is broken and they are unwilling to make it work.
I bought into India back in 2013 with the premium level plus the level four and five and India still has not opened and I can not get a refund!
Lyoness CNO IMEA and CNO Southern Europe, former Lyoness Ireland CEO and Greece/Cyprus CEO and his wife accused for scamming people by prosecutor in Greece:
as far I undrstand Lyoness AG and other companies are also on the list
You seem to have confused the POTENTIAL of shopping (i.e. have merchants enrolled) vs. actual shopping (revenue generated at the merchants). Or did you travel back from the future?
I SAW people shopping, and shopped myself. What about this do you not understand?
Go kick rocks man, shopping is not Lyoness core bussines but decoy for luring weak minded people into pyramid scam.
Accept the truth, better earlier than later, it will hurt you less…
Anna Tissel, formet Middle Europe Manager, currently holds Lyoness Greece CEO position after her husband.
Nothing, since it’s irrelevant due to you fundamentally MISunderstanding the argument.
As long as you can buy the AU directly, nobody with any math skills would bother shopping to build AU.
It’s 50X more efficient to buy the AU directly. In other words, shopping is there just so you can argue “shopping! shopping!! shopping!!!” until you’re blue in the face.
Sane people who do the math will never bother with shopping to build AU.
Which means Lyoness as an income opporunity (i.e. build serious AU) can only work as a Ponzi scheme: you buy your AU, and convince other people to also buy their AU so you can reap your benefits.
Which basically means any one advertising Lyoness as “shopping your way to $$$” has cognitive dissonance: their math doesn’t make sense, but they have compartmentalized their thoughts and try not to think conflicting thoughts, which makes them cranky.
I DO understand what your point appears to be…but you are INCORRECT. People can, if they choose, create the AUs 2 different ways.
1 of them, and for sure the continual way, is to SHOP at our merchants because the AU is simply created by money paid by the merchant to the company.
I’ve created many more of the AUs from my shopping than anything else. You cannot flippantly dismiss the fact that people DO shop to create the units.
What people can do is irrelevant when every top earner in Lyoness has made money by investing in AUs and convincing others to do the same.
Why have the Ponzi AU investment option in the first place if shopping what Lyoness was really about?
Shopping AUs do not legitimize the AU Ponzi investment aspect of the scheme, and are thus wholly able to be dismissed as irrelevant.
I disagree with your conclusion.
And that’s fine.
Logic dictates that when the core of your business revolves around AU investment and recruiting others who do the same, whatever else you build around that (in this case shopping) is irrelevant.
You are free to disagree, as anyone participating in a Ponzi scheme is (knowingly or otherwise).
Just curious what your experience is in network marketing? And, do you have a big team?
Who I am is not relevant to the discussion.
Big team, small team, experienced or not, Lyoness’ business model and virtually ALL of the discussions I’ve experienced with people in Lyoness revolves around SHOPPING, acquiring MERCHANTS, and growing the shopping volume. You guys focus on a MINOR part, an OPTIONAL part of Lyoness.
Fine. You’ll say the focus of the top earners is on acquiring members creating AUs differently than those created by shopping; that may have been part of it, especially in the very beginning, but the top guys I’ve met are much more focused on the long-term part of the company now that it’s gotten established in 46 countries, and that is shopping; adding shoppers and merchants who don’t even know what an AU is.
You can say whatever you want in this forum, it’s a free world here on the internet. But I’m also free to share my experiences as well and that’s what I’ve done.
For a long time I have been focusing on the merchants and shoppers and have brought in many of them; they don’t know/don’t care about AUs. That’s been my experience.
Apparently you just keep IGNORING the point.
Which is more efficient: 1) buy the AU at 1 to 1, or 2) shop for AU at 50 to 1 (assuming 2%)
Except you have NO IDEA how many units per year are created by shopping vs. direct purchase. Do you?
Logically it’s a negligible amount, i.e. people who don’t care about building up the AU. If they really do care, they’d buy the AUs outright.
You can’t prove that you’re the rule, not the exception. You simply don’t have the data.
Thx for the rude reply. I got my answer anyway, and you have no clue how NWM works. Notice I didn’t say Lyoness.
“The top guys I’ve met” what a hoot! You’re going to need some serious deprogramming.
you have to. your hope in this scam depends on it.
Sounds more like what Lyoness tell their affiliates to say in those brochures they send out. Verbatim.
The operative word being “I’VE”
See how easy it is to organize an international pyramid scheme in the internet age ??
All you need to do is recruit a true believer or two who will post anecdotal evidence on blogs and forums and feed them with cliched responses to use when questioned, then tip the wink to the other 90+% of members they can carry on with recruiting and selling fictional “AUs” to their hearts’ content.
What “YOU” do, Markie, is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when it’s easily demonstrated what the greatest majority of Lyoness do or can do.
“so called” SHOPPING you mean – last few years Lyoness and his followers spent on tries to convince everyone that placing downpayments is actual shopping and from the time Lyconet has been launched they assure they sell “doscount vouchers”, which in reality need to be topped up like tthe downpayments previously.
All I can speak about is my personal experiences.
I’ve shopped and created numerous AUs from that shopping. I’ve brought in shoppers who get cashback on their purchases who know nothing about AUs.
I’ve brought in a few merchants who have given out several hundred Cashback Cards; their customers know nothing about AUs as well.
The focus of the people I work with is merchants and shopping volume.
By the way Char…I’ve made over a million dollars in MLM prior to Lyoness so I think I’ve got a feel for the industry. All my other companies were marketing products and making commission on those purchases. Why that’s relevant I do not know but it’s a fact as well.
You guys here can’t seem to reconcile the fact that we have an amazing amount of actual shopping at merchants going on around the world. You lash out with the ad hominems and that’s kind of funny instead of acknowledging the facts I present.
^^ As far as the MLM opportunity goes, you will make nothing without investment.
By all means continue to parrot the Lyoness PR line about shopping, but the fact remains unless you invest and get others to invest, you are only ever going to make peanuts as a Lyoness affiliate.
Oops, I thought you were the ‘scammee’. My bad.
The relevance is ‘recruitment based business opportunity’. What you’re selling is of no significance. Your ‘companies’ reference (plural) supports my statement.
LMFAO! Sssssssuuuuuuuure you have.
Nobody who’s made a million in MLM would be silly enough to work Lyoness on shopping units.
The math alone is terrible…
Keith Laggos was silly enough to have Lyoness as a “Plan B”, but he didn’t specifically mention “shopping units” as a part of that plan. 🙂
And from what I’ve heard Laggos got kicked out right away as he was trying to fit Lyoness into the scammy model like the many of those on this website.
And what do you suppose attracted Laggos to Lyoness? It sure ain’t shopping.
After just listening to a call about building large local merchant communities I thought I’d mention that what I like about Lyoness (Ozedit: This is not the place for offtopic marketing spam).
He tried to recruit a complete downline of other Premium Members? 🙂
That’s how Lyoness actually worked, so you can’t blame HIM for that. Even Hubert Friedl (sp?) said it was “all about positions”.
Lyoness doesn’t really work as an income opportunity if you don’t recruit minimum 4 other investors, and those 4 investors recruit some. I have checked several of the examples people have used to defend Lyoness, and the shopping arguments don’t really reflect the realities.
That idea will fail if a court finds that Lyoness have operated illegally? So you can’t simply focus on your own ideas about how much money you can make in residual income.
Lyoness may also harm a normal merchant business. It’s not seen as “normal business practice” for a merchant to recruit customers (or other merchants) into illegal, third party income opportunities.
You can get dissatisfied customers blaming YOU for introducing them to Lyoness based on misleading information, i.e. YOU can be the one they will blame. You can lose almost all your reputation (if you have one) as a merchant people safely can do business with.
4 people? Don’t know where you get that.
Shoppers get Cashback and other benefits with a free loyalty card; cashback at the business that gave them the card and cashback at lots of other places. That’s the extent of the story for shoppers.
Even if it went away it cost the shopper nothing and they got some benefits; nothing to be mad about.
It was based on the 2012 (or 2013) U.S. compensation plan from Lyoness. I’m not talking about the Lyconet model there. I haven’t analysed that one.
Premium Members would need to have 4 directly recruited people in downline to be qualified for the “extended commissions and bonuses”, each with minimum one AU. And shopping alone wouldn’t create many units, so people would need to recruit Premium Members to make a profit “within reasonable time”.
The reason why I referred to the 2012 or 2013 compensation plan was because the post partly was about Keith Laggos’ “Plan B” = the relevant time period was June or July 2012.
Have you looked at the video from “Andrew from Australia”, a former Lyoness Premium member who joined Lyoness in January 2012.
The one thing you should look at is how he describes it initially. “I loved the business concept”, etc., from 1:20 into the video to 4:00 (why he joined, how he joined, how much he invested, what they asked him to focus on).
He loved how he believed it would work. He hadn’t really understood the program, but he loved his own ideas about how it would benefit “struggling small merchants all over Australia”. And he still loves that idea, so he’s blaming some local management people for the failure.
I have pointed out that the first thing he will need to correct should be his own ideas. He joined Lyoness based on how he thought it would work. He didn’t react to the fact that he was asked to focus on recruitment of additional investors.
He fell for the “things will change” argument, and to the false positivity everyone would need to show (between 4:00 and 6:00 into the video).
People first brainwash themselves (more or less) with their own ideas, and then they start to accept to brainwash themselves with Lyoness’ ideas. But they don’t see that as a problem, they believe the problem is “out there somewhere, among the local leaders”.
A court might not see it that way if you have invested in Premium membership yourself and try to recruit other Premium members. It will more likely see you as a participant in a pyramid scheme.
It doesn’t really matter how you describe it yourself, i.e. your own willingness to mislead yourself will not count in your favor.
I’m pretty sure Andrew repeated exactly the same arguments you have used when he was “active”.
Oh I see. Yes in the comp plan before Lyconet you simply needed 4 people who have created 1 unit in order to be fully qualified for all commissions.
It was definitely not just Premiums; many people became qualified without bringing in a single Premium.
It’s not difficult to create a unit from shopping if you’ll simply look at all the possibilities. My family creates more than 1 every month just from regular household expenses; heck some people buy a car at a Lyoness dealership and create 10 or more at one time.
I had heard of Laggos before he joined Lyoness back when… his reputation as a scammer was pretty legendary.
People were pitching me on a gas additive deal I think. I have heard Lyoness was not happy he was promoting it…thankfully he didn’t last in the company long apparently.
Now I remember… people were pitching me on Zeek also (I get hit up for a lot of different things).
I stayed way far away from there as the business model never made sense obviously. That’s where Laggos name popped up again to me.
And how many people / positions do they need in Lyconet to become qualified for various payouts?
Lyoness required 4 directly recruited, each with one AU, as a minimum. To make money / break even “within reasonable time” they would need to become Premium members themselves, and recruit 4 direct + 16 indirect Premium members.
Note that I used the term “within reasonable time”. Regulatory actions or “system collapses” will usually interfere with long term plans for the opportunities reviewed here.
He’s the owner of NMBJ Network Marketing Business Journal. It has been in business since the 1980-ies, IIRC. But companies use it to promote themselves in various ways.
He’s also an ANMP member (“insider”), Association of Network Marketing Professionals. He’s probably member of other associations too.
So I don’t think he has a reputation as a scammer. But he probably has “some type of reputation as something”, and he probably got more of it after he promoted Zeek. 🙂
But people’s reputation will usually survive something like that if they handle it correctly.
Beepxtra, Paid2Save, Affinity24, Flexkom to name a few. All recruitment based run by proven scammers, or serial MLM jumpers/promoters.
I agree that a couple of those I’m familiar with and they have big problems/are scams.
I’m not talking about other MLMs or whatever you’d call those…I’m talking about other loyalty rewards programs.
Regardless Lyoness pays every shopper cashback on every purchase. That money comes from the money the merchant pays to Lyoness on each transaction as a marketing expense (contractually agreed between the merchant and Lyoness beforehand).
It makes sense…merchant gets a customer, customer buys what they want and gets cashback, and some of the money goes into the network to be distributed to the people who set up the network and who worked to sign up the merchant. Everyone wins, no one loses.
M. Norway. FYI the commissions to be paid to someone (except for 1 minor one) will wait until the person gets qualified with their 4 Directs with 1 unit…even if it were to take a long time.
Let me ask you, how long do you think it would take to create a unit? By the way, Premiums decide to get many units but if you wanted only 1 it is now possible to do so.
RE: Laggos. I used to follow a website called worldwidescam.com back when and Laggos was named all over that years ago; that’s where I came upon his name. They used to list his “current” scam-type thing.
I don’t know him at all or even what he’s up to, I’m just referring to what I read on that website, and surely everything someone writes on that kind of site must be true!
This is where you are ignoring facts, as you *can* purchase AUs directly from Lyoness and reap the rewards instead of building them through shopping.
You just keep hawking about how YOU see the company as a rewards program and any one who see Lyoness is a money-making opportunity is “wrong”.
You simply refuse to see that Lyoness is BOTH.
You’re like the proverbial 3 blind men and the elephant… each grabbed one part of the elephant and insist the other two were wrong in what they described.
Except you are NOT blind. You simply ignore what you see.
He’s probably seen as a scammer here too, but I will carefully try to avoid describing people like that. I will focus on the specific action rather than on the person, e.g. I will point to the April 2012 version of the NMBJ and the paid promotion of ZeekRewards, and to his role as an affiliate.
He’s most likely not seen as a scammer “among his own people”, or by most “reasonable persons”.
For most people, the first few units in AC1 were created reasonably fast (because of planned purchases), and then it slowed down. But I have mostly asked Premium members.
“Old shopping habits” will always beat “new shopping habits” for most people, e.g. they will visit the restaurants they always have visited, buy groceries in one of the nearest stores, etc., and otherwise do what they always have done.
They will only change shopping habits for a short period of time. So creating “35 above / 35 below” will take a very long time through shopping.
I agree with you. We do have some merchants, especially online, that are the same merchant someone may already be using, like textbooks.com or hotels.com.
Those are no-brainers. Your point is accurate that people won’t change to readily unless it’s convenient.
That’s why we’re focusing on building the small merchant network so shopping gets easier with more local merchants and more variety with simplicity.
K Chang I do see both. My take for what it’s worth is that people who think they can just get units, sit back and magically make money, do not understand this business at all.
It doesn’t work like that.
To make residual income you need to help create a network of shoppers; without a continual flow of money into the system (and every purchase at a merchant does this) there is nothing happening.
Even the craziest person can see that eventually you’d run out of Premium members so the income would stop.
It’s the continuing flow of money into the system from shopping that makes it a sustainable business. Whether you optionally create an AU in the beginning or shop to create it, unless you’re willing to put in some effort it will go nowhere most likely (you could get some spillover from your upline possibly but why count on that?).
If there were no possibility of creating an AU up front the business would be very obvious, that ONLY shopping would create a unit, but without that, and especially years ago when there were virtually no merchants, I can see why the company made that an option.
But people get focused on the initial creation of an AU part and miss the point of the business…continual shopping is what creates the ongoing flow of money (paid by the merchants) into the business.
You say you see both, yet you still insist YOUR viewpoint is the “correct” viewpoint by dismissing the other viewpoint and your only reasoning is, what? Faith?
RE: seeing both sides.
To recap: if people think that creating AUs up front and then doing nothing to build the shopping network is going to work long-term they’re mistaken.
In other words, AUs by themselves are not going to do anything unless there is activity to follow.
You cannot have an endless stream of AUs created up front by new people and no shopping on the back end to continue to create them. You run out of people.
That’s not the actual business model and has never been the model, and that’s a fact.
Lyoness always has been about shopping, long before the AUs were even a part of the business. If someone doesn’t understand that and just creates AUs and magically thinks there’s going to be paydays ongoing they are just wrong.
Continual shopping and money paid into the system by merchants is what this is about and has always been about. Creating AUs in the beginning is not what creates the ongoing residual income, shopping does.
We are building a huge shopping network worldwide and it’s a big job.
There are over 50,000 merchants now I believe but that’s tiny compared to where we need to be and where we will be someday.. now that’s where the “faith” comes in… we are building a large business and most merchants are happy so I believe we have a winner.
Sure, the people recruiting yet OTHER people to buy more AUs.
Nope, as long as AUs are created under you, you benefit. It doesn’t matter whether it’s created through purchase or shopping. Lyoness makes no such distinction.
It did actually have a page about Keith Laggos. I had a quick look at it without checking details. It looked “factual enough” (one of the labels we place on people when they see something from a similar point of view as we see it).
The search method “keith laggos site:worldwidescam.com” revealed that he had been mentioned on 11 or 13 pages (out of 479 hits).
The site itself only had 4 new stories in 2012 (when I tried to identify it by dates). But many stories or documents seemed to be undated (based on how Google sees it).
Most of the Keith Laggos stories seemed to be from 2010 or earlier, most likely from 2005/2006.
Your Keith Laggos story seems to be plain BS / “trained communication method”, something you have been taught in a “advanced communication course” or something similar.
Example, post #89:
I’m able to find search results like that for “keith laggos scam”. The first hit is worldwidescam.com, the other hits are mostly related to ZeekRewards.
But you obviously didn’t check those sources carefully enough before you posted your posts #89, #90 and #95. Those sources didn’t really confirm your version of the story.
Those examples only tells what you have found on the internet via a quick search, but without actually reading the stories. You didn’t carefully check dates / time periods, how active the website was, how easy it was to navigate, etc.
So when you tried to make your story look more “believable” (about how you had heard about Keith Laggos), it actually became less believable.
There’s nothing wrong with the part that Keith Laggos can be seen as a scammer. But the story you made up for why YOU see him like that seems to be “manufactured”.
Posts #104 and #105 are related to that I tried to check whether Markie is “trained by Lyoness” or if he is an “ordinary, relatively new Lyoness member” that has been misled by Lyoness.
I checked one of his sources, worldwidescam.com, the one he used to back up his own story to make himself look more “credible”.
I also checked search results for “keith laggos scam”. Markie’s story seems to be based solely on search results, not on personal experience (like he pretended it to be about).
I told him about my findings, how it looked like when I tried to check his story. His story survived a very brief check based on search results, but it didn’t survive when I checked details.
Markie has some type of “communication training” / “leadership training” (or something similar), i.e. he’s using some taught communication methods to deflect critical comments / post his own propaganda, while making his posts appear like normal dialogues.
I haven’t identified any exact methods. There are hundreds of variations, so I won’t try to identify it in detail. I will only give an example.
“Cover both sides” is a well known method. It has multiple functions, e.g. to reduce resistance against your own arguments.
It basically goes like this:
1. Your opponent’s argument = “Lyoness the recruitment driven scheme”
2. Repeat your opponent’s argument, a short, modified summary, e.g. “Lyoness had problems like that in 2012” (I modified it from a current problem to a historical one).
3. “Build a bridge” from your opponent’s arguments over to your own. That’s relatively easy, but you will need to be prepared for different types of arguments and have planned different “bridges”.
4. End up with your own arguments, e.g. “Lyoness the merchant network with happy shoppers”. Make sure that your own arguments get more attention than your opponent’s.
“Politicians use it all the time”
Politicians use methods like that all the time in TV debates, e.g. they start their answers with a “national debt” reply but end up with something completely different, but slightly related.
That’s why most TV-viewers will see some politicians as “vague, diffuse, tries to avoid the real question”, while others will see them as “accurate and factual, focused almost directly on the core point”.
Methods like that have some limitations. Some TV-debates can become completely uninspiring because of all the vague answers.
My post #79 about Keith Laggos was a type of “internal joke”.
It wasn’t directly related to Lyoness, scams or anything like that — it was only meant as an example for “you will always find some people foolish enough if you really try to find them (but I had to try long and hard until I finally found one example from 2012, and I didn’t find any exact match)”.
My post wasn’t meant for a lengthy dialogue about Keith Laggos, it was only a quick joke.
You shouldn’t have responded to it at all. The post contained too little information to be interpreted in one direction or another, i.e. you took a huge, unnecessary “communication risk” when you decided to post your own comment(s).
Your first post would have “survived”:
“From what I have heard” is vague enough. People “hear” all different things, so you didn’t really take any risk there. But you did take a huge risk when you tried to build up your own story with references to external sources.
Your story simply didn’t sound believable enough to be trusted. It sounded like a manufactured story. And all the details seemed to be wrong when I checked it. It did survive a brief check, but that was all.
Here’s one of the reasons for why your story failed (there’s multiple other reasons):
“Look Who’s Wearing Lifewave Patches Now — Chippendale Dancers!”
Your story looked plausible enough for a short period of time, but you clearly didn’t “use to follow” that site back in 2012.
It changed style long before 2012, and added parody / satire as a “main weapon”. And it doesn’t exactly write for specific or general “followers”.
And they surely didn’t “use to list Laggos’ current scam-type thing”.
They mentioned the paid “Business of the month” and “Product of the month” NMBJ articles ($25,000 for a positive review), and they mentioned the $25,000 SEC fine.
Both those stories were from 2005 or 2006, as far as I could see. But Laggos was mentioned in a total of 13 stories from the same time period.
If you really had followed that site, you should normally have pointed out the “entertainment value” of some of the stories, rather than the “scam info value”.
This is not effect of “communication training”, lets call it what it was indeed, it’s effect of intensive brainwashing sessions.
They keep repeating same BS about shopping and nothing more, while main goal is to lure shoppers into Lyconet downline of merchants who first had to downpay premium membership before they were allowed to join the program.
I initially thought that too, before I started to analyse his posts.
I have several selfdev books about communication from the 1980-ies or earlier. I received most of them as free gifts from the publisher because I owned some shares in that company. It didn’t pay out any dividend, but I received a lot of free books. 🙂
I recognized Markie’s “communication strategies” from books like that. I have TRIED similar methods myself long time ago, but I didn’t really use them on any regular basis. So I know many methods, but I don’t have the skills to use them.
It was a rather poor investment, but I eventually got 60% of my principal investment back “after some years”.
I have a complete range from “Think And Grow Rich”, “How To Win Friends And Influence People” to more modern books about “Price Strategy”, “telephone sale techniques”, “How To Read People Like An Open Book”. 🙂
I became immune against selfdev books and selfdev gurus. 🙂
So did I, after some basic “resistance management” trainings led by one NLPer during my project management courses.
But I’m never sure if they are Lyoness Ministry of Truth speaking to us undercover with their reality-inverting content or just barinwashed parrots thinking they will succeed because “fake it till you make it” will work at the end of the day.
You dont know of any other cashback reward programs? Well, perhaps you should be in that market then. Your inexperience and ignorance is costing you ALLOT of money.
You dont even know the company that all these Bullshit Caskback deals and wanna be e-commerce companies are trying to copy??
You have no clue who started all this and has actually paid several Billion dollars more in cashback and commissions than the total gross sales of all these piss ant, fly by night companies COMBINED?
Ignorance is Bliss?
So we both agree his tricks are cheap and not effective,and may work for vulnerable people don’t we?
I sometimes think they rather adress such communication to Lyoness comunity members than to people from outside and the aim is to harden this strange beliefs inside deluded community.
So, Markie, I have one question you could elaborate a little answering it – what would be final proof Lyoness is ordinary pyramid scheme hidden under shopping cover?
What should happen, which body or instance should say so? What would convince yourself personally, wwhat facts shall surface to be so? Court sentences, administrative decisions, prosecutors statements? What would it be?
Let’s nominate Hubert Freidl for the Nobel Prize for Economics. What he has developed is the most powerful concept in retailing since the invention of the internet.
This site has been ranting about the negatives of Lyoness for 4 years, we had less than 1 million members then, now we have approximately 5 million.
The goal of Lyoness is 1 billion members in the next 5 to 6 years, how effective is your rant.
If you can’t beat them I say join them. Open up your minds, look at the changes Lyoness has made to be compliant.
Yes you guys do a good job with pure scam related companies, this one is the wrong target.
You guys probably wont post this for others to see, as you are not open to any other point of view. I will see.
I’m not 100% sure about my own conclusion, but he clearly didn’t tell the truth about how he came to know Keith Laggos’ “bad reputation”. So I checked one of the external sources his story was based on, and I checked a few of his posts looking for “communication techniques”.
I didn’t receive that type of books. 🙂
“Free gifts” means that the shareholders mostly received “old” books, “shelf warmers” the publisher hadn’t managed to sell within reasonable time.
I pointed out that “Andrew from Australia” fell for his own ideas in post #88. And so did I, I fell for the idea of “ownership in a book club” and how it could “grow in value”.
I didn’t really see its limited market and other important factors. That’s probably related to selfdev books, they often distort how we see things.
They’re not cheap and ineffective.
Politicians often use methods like that in TV-debates to “deflect” arguments from the opponent. And it may clearly affect the result in an election, e.g. only small changes in how people see things can affect the outcome.
I’m not really into politics. Reagan’s 1984 presidential campaign is a famous example for debate strategy.
It’s not exactly the right type of example, but it’s close enough. I only tried to show that we CAN affect how people see things, but HOW to do it is quite a different animal.
The general idea is “try to make it become more acceptable (to the masses)”. And we don’t do that by using “methods” or “tricks”.
Wow you guys must be impressed by my intellect and innate communication skills.
I’m not trained and have not taken any classes in any hypnotism or NLP or EST or any of that stuff and I certainly do not work for any corporate entity.
Anyway, I followed WWScam long before 2012. In fact it was Lifewave’s pitch that actually led me to that site.
That was a LONG time ago… I got pitched on Lifewave before it was even launched and they were claiming the USA Olympic swim team wore the patches at the Olympics… I think it was 2004 …LONG time ago.
I tried the patches myself and can’t say I felt anything but I went to some meetings and actually met David Schmidt a couple of times but it just never seemed to be what they said.
Anyway, THAT’S what led me to that website because they were funny about calling out Lifewave and that’s where I came across Laggos I’m pretty sure.
I don’t really remember the details but his name and picture are familiar from something and I think that’s where. Regardless, every single thing I’ve written is factual… this is the internet and you can believe it or not but I’m telling the truth.
I’ve never said I’m NEW in Lyoness…I’ve been in awhile and I am not “brainwashed” as you say. I’m a successful businessman outside of Lyoness and MLM.
Still missing your answers.
Not at all. I read the same bullshit on different forums in differet languages often enough to conclude that the only option is Lyoness spreading it internally for copy/paste purposes, with just a small modifications.
Been following this interesting discussion…
i recall seeing a presentation of Lyoness about february 2013… one of the most confusing concepts id ever come across… glad i never got involved!
As for Lifewave… the binary comp plan is deplorable and i dont promote that at all… who wants to work 2 legs of a downline, keep them on autoship and over $1000 in sales to get a paltry $50!
MEH!!!… but by gee i like using those patches!
Nope. You triggered suspicion. And that wasn’t because of your intellect, but because your story had several weird elements.
That was my impression too, e.g. because Keith Laggos’ “Plan B” call happened in July 2012.
The reason for why I’m trying to identify potential “taught communication strategies” is simply because we don’t offer that type of “individual” service.
Did I clear up the “weird elements”?
Self-fluffer is hardly impressive. Donald Trump is a self-fluffer too.
Your posts had some weird elements too. It could have been accepted if you had been relatively new to Lyoness, “a misguided person”, but you have been around for a while.
The car purchase example
We stopped accepting statements like that in 2013 because they are too time consuming to check. I checked the cashback + benefits from car dealers a couple of times, somewhere in the very long Lyoness thread.
In one calculation, the Lyoness member would need to buy 16 or 17 cars at an average price of $30,000 to get the $675 mature payout (35/35). One car purchase would generate 4 AC1 units “worth” $75 each, i.e. the consumer would need to spend more than $500,000 on car purchases to get a $675 payout.
That was the most detailed check I made, checking multiple car dealers in a huge area in the U.S.
Your statement indicates that the consumer “only” will need to buy 7 cars or less to get that payout, but you didn’t provide the relevant details.
My point is that statements like “some people buy a car at a Lyoness dealership and create 10 or more at one time” won’t make any sense to a consumer.
The consumer will be unable to understand how much money he or she actually will need to spend on cars to get a payout, and the amount of that payout.
And that’s exactly what Lyoness have been criticized for, e.g. by the Austrian Consumer Protection Bureau. Lyoness’ information is too vague to be understandable to an average consumer.
You keep missing this. It’s not just MY purchases that create units behind mine. It’s EVERYONE in my downline to unlimited depth.
Obviously for me to create 70 units to get to 35/35 is a TON of personal shopping. If I create 1 per month from my shopping that’s nearly 6 years. But if I have 70 shoppers creating, say, 1/2 unit a month that’s only 2 months.
This is just an example; some people don’t do much shopping, others more but that’s how it works.
The point is it’s not just ME shopping…geez how many times to I have to cover this?
Also, pure shoppers (people not in Lyconet which is the network side of Lyoness) do not know nor care a thing about units…they just get cashback with their free membership. That’s a nice benefit for shopping at Lyoness merchants.
Also, K Chang my comment about intellect and skills was tongue-in-cheek. I thought about putting LOL after that but thought it was an obvious joke. Sorry you missed the humor.
As far as a car purchase creating units and how many are created, the minimum amount of money going to create a unit, paid by the merchant, is 1% of the purchase.
Say someone buys a car for $40,000 so 1% of that is $400. A unit is $75 so that’s about 5 units.
Someone in Lyconet, if they understand the value of a unit, will check-off the option to have their cashback part also go to create the unit, so that’s another 1%… so they’d create 10 units. That’s just the math.
Forgot to answer:
Yeah, and when you shop at merchants you can receive few Shopping points for each $150 spent, but if you purchase Lyoness vouchers you for $75 you get 50 SP = 1 unit.
With this voucher to use it you need to top it up like downpayments previously. Nothing changed with Lyconet in this matter.
No, you didn’t, but you improved your own story.
I only vaguely mentioned Keith Laggos’ “Plan B”, and you immediately posted that you had heard he “got kicked out right away as he was trying to fit Lyoness into the scammy model”.
You failed to explain the context for WHEN you heard it, or HOW you heard it, or any similar information that can help us verify that it actually is correct. You will need to add more substance to your claim.
I’m not asking for any details, only for “what a reasonable person can accept as an explanation”. I’m not familiar with the internal procedures in Lyoness, and neither are most other readers.
Vague claims will create a legal risk, e.g. “false light”. I’m trying to make that risk more identifiable. I’m also trying to make your information more “useable” in case someone want to refer to us as a source.
Why are we even talking about Laggos? Someone else brought it up and I told you what I knew.
I had heard about this guy joining Lyoness and my impression was that he was bad news as I remembered his name from the website I mentioned. He was gone pretty quickly. End of story.
Someone mentioned Discount Vouchers creating units. This is for NETWORKERS ONLY; it’s people who are interested in the business (and the business, in essence, is putting shoppers and merchants together and getting paid a tiny piece of potentially a large shopping volume) so these people should be willing to take some time to understand the business.
This is NOT for shoppers only as shoppers do NOT create units for themselves. They simply shop and get cashback (and other benefits). Understood so far?
OK, as we’ve discussed every time someone buys something at a Lyoness merchant, the merchants pay a small percentage of every purchase to Lyoness (the percentage is pre-agreed upon when the merchant joins the network); it’s a marketing expense.
Some of that money is allocated to create units. These units connect with other units and create paydays as they hit milestones in the number of units coming in behind.
If you think about it, each of these units represent shopping being done at Lyoness merchants. If you have people in your network who are shopping, then the payments you receive because of units connected to yours are simply a tiny slice of the shopping volume; can you see that?
This is why we want lots of merchants and lots of shoppers, because the larger the shopping volume in your group the more money you can make, but I digress.
As we’ve also discussed if you’re casually shopping at our merchants in can take awhile to create a unit. $75USD paid by the merchants collect in an account which then can create the unit.
Some people shop more at the merchants and make several a month and others may only make 1 or 2 a year (or fewer) if they’re not shopping that much at our merchants. It’s completely a function of the shopping.
It is desirable to have units in the system in front of the other units being created (obviously). So the company provides an OPTION to purchase a Discount Voucher for $75 now, to help you create a unit now.
No one has to do this but if it makes sense to you (and if you’re going to shop) you could do it if you want. Again, totally optional.
You can purchase a DV for $75 and then you then as you shop you’ll use up the Discount Vouchers you just purchased. These will cause you to get paid to you the money the merchants are sending to the company; Lyoness repays you the money INSTEAD of creating more units as you redeem the Vouchers.
You already created a unit for $75 and now you get paid back the $75 as it trickles in from your shopping.
It only will do this if you shop. If you don’t shop obviously you won’t get your $75 back. Your choice.
This is an OPTION if you want to. Creating units right now is cool and getting paid back as you shop is great…no risk IF YOU SHOP.
Again…people can be idiots and buy a DV and not shop and then complain about not getting their $75 back. Hey, if you don’t shop it won’t happen, plain and simple. If you’re not going to shop, then DON’T buy a DV!
One other thing that’s really cool about Lyoness (actually the network has the units, that’s Lyconet) that maybe many of you don’t know, is that you also create units in the system that connect to people who are not necessarily in your downline.
They can connect to the shopping (again the units are a result of shopping) of everyone in your COUNTRY (even people in OTHER countries), everyone in your Continent and even every single person in all of Lyoness.
This can create some cool residual income coming to you from basically everyone in Lyoness. It can come in AS LONG AS PEOPLE ARE SHOPPING…if they shop, units are created, and then payouts happen.
If there is no shopping, then there’s no money going to create units. It makes sense.
And that’s the best conclusion. The rest is simply reality inverting BS.
You’re so succesful in MLM and well familiarized with Lyones, reasonable guy, not braiwashed one but sane as hell, so what would convince yourself personally Lyoness is pyramid scheme and simply scam?
What facts would it be to change your curret opinion? Just imagine what could it be?
Why do you take a partial quote and change the meaning? I’ve laid out this whole deal it’s obviously not an endless chain scheme.
In practice it’s like that: join Lyoness Shopping comunity for free, then accept Lyconet contract and pay yearly fee, then purchase vouchers for $3600 which gives you 2400SP you can convert ti different accounting categories units.
This will give you status of Premium Lyconet Marketer, Career Level 1 and make you entitled to profit from luring people that do the same.
Why just not to reply my question? Try to begin with: “I would start to consider Lyoness to be pyramid scheme and fraud if…”
I’ve stated my case.
Hell, no. There should be something that would change your mind if you’re healthy thinking man.
Ie. if I saw court sentence saying ” We can’t consider Lyoness business model being pyramid scheme and therefore Lyoness does not have to give its member downpayed money back ” it would convince me enough to say I was wrong thinking oposite.
What it would be for you to quit thinking Lyoness is not a fraud?
It can be said much simpler.
Lyoness’ AU system can make sense for someone who has clear plans for how to recruit a complete downline. But it makes very little sense for an average consumer.
Cashback should make sense to most consumers.
Your own explanation only made it become more confusing to a consumer, e.g. the part where “someone in Lyconet” would need to “see some value in the units”, and then reinvest his own cashback and double the number of units in your “lifeline”.
You first tried to tell us that it was “consumption driven”, but suddenly you added reinvestment of cashback to make your own idea work.
Then we’re back to the old model where people invested directly in AU units. Nothing has really changed, they have just made it become more confusing.
The only changes comparing to old GTC’s are that Lyconet Contract calls Marketer an enterprenuer not a consumer, which will make one more problems if he decides to withdraw his money from “the System” and that vouchers/Shopping points are 3 years valid while downpayments were “eternal”.
If one wanted to cash this discount vouchers that he got via Victorias Secret online store, using scenario I described above he/she should top the vouchers up with $720 000. Markie, pls correct me if I’m wrong with the calculation 🙂
This is not precise – you cannot “cash” it, you can use it as a part of your payment while making purchase in VS online shop.
I was obviously wrong.
I looked at the “seeing both sides” part of the comments. A method like that CAN be used to neutralize arguments and make something look slightly more favorable, “more acceptable to the masses”.
I am trying to figure out what “genius” would pay for a discount to shop just to get paid back their own money?
Plus with so many places to shop these days how is this attractive to anyone?
Sounds like Markie has been too close to the fumes and can’t think clearly.
Expecting to make millions from this is a dead end for sure.
It could be both in fact. They just brainwash people during so-called “trainings”.
I learned to ask them questions that make them try to think about something they can’t due to mind control techniques that were used against them during brainwashing. It never fails 😉
Brainwashing wasn’t the type of “professional training” I had in mind.
I don’t see it as very professional. James Arthur Ray used many different brainwashing techniques on himself. It attracted some “followers”, but it also made him quite dysfunctional in the eyes of other people.
Markie tried to use “see it from both sides”. It’s normally a completely rational method. But there’s many different variations that can be really annoying to other people.
I have been discussing actively back and forth with Lyoness members for 3 years, and some of them have tried to use different “techniques”. So I will actively look for “suspicious methods” and try to derail them.
Brainwashing? What a hoot! Where the heck did that thought come from?
I can tell some of you have not read my posts carefully if you’ve come to some of your conclusions like it doesn’t make sense or it’s more confusing or whatnot.
Just read the posts, understand there is a shopper-only side with a free membership, and and optional business side, which is also free to join BTW, in which people who want to build the shopping and merchant networks can earn a tiny piece of a large shopping volume.
Of course a tiny piece of a large shopping volume can be a lot of residual income money.
Still can’t even think of finishing the sentence beginning with:“I would start to consider Lyoness to be pyramid scheme and fraud if…” ?
Probably from watching you carefully ignoring the fact people “CAN” and “DO” join (for free or otherwise) and concentrate solely on the AU / pyramid side of the business and Lyoness has thus far failed to do anything about it.
From a legal perspective, pyramid schemes / endless chain recruiting schemes are illegal.
More importantly, from the perspective of someone looking to become involved with MLM / Lyoness,such schemes are guaranteed to fail and guaranteed to leave upward of 90% of participants out of pocket.
Your anecdotal experience/s are therefore irrelevant.
What you see as “math”, other people may see as “brainwashed person”.
The first part is correct enough. 1% of $40,000 = $400.
“That’s about” is accepted in math in some situations.
Then you have a long story where someone in Lyconet will need to see some value of the units and reinvest cashback in 5 units. That’s not math. 🙂
And those 5 units will be added under your own units. That’s not math.
But 5+5=10 is real math.
The long story in the middle simply isn’t part of any mathematical or logical explanation. You added that part from imagination, so the answer could become “correct” from your own perspective.
I didn’t see you as “brainwashed”. You’re relatively rational from my perspective. But your explanation wasn’t.
I have found some answers for the Reagan example in post #114.
* It wasn’t about WHAT he said, but about HOW he said it. He used his skills as an actor to communicate it (body language, voice, etc.). He literally lived himself into that role.
* That’s where it initially failed in the first TV-debate. They tried to use “standard training” with rapid questions and answers, with a lot of detailed questions. He simply didn’t have those skills, and the training made him worse / made him feel uncomfortable. So he didn’t perform very well either.
* In the second TV-debate, they used more of HIS solutions than THEIR solutions. He was already an expert communicator himself (as an actor), so he didn’t really need all that “new” training.
I browsed quickly through the relevant part of “You Are The Message” by Roger Ailles. I didn’t focus on details.
Let me see if I can help clarify:
The only changes comparing to old GTC’s are that Lyconet Contract calls Marketer an enterprenuer not a consumer, which will make one more problems if he decides to withdraw his money from “the System” and that vouchers/Shopping points are 3 years valid while downpayments were “eternal”.
Sorry…not true. Lyoness separated out the shoppers and merchants (the transactional side of the company) which is Lyoness and created Lyconet which is the network side.
It makes things more clear as most shoppers and merchants probably do not want to join a “network” company…they simply are interested in the transactions; shoppers want cashback and merchants want customers.
That’s now clear because they’re in Lyoness only. I’ve never heard Lyconet call anyone an entrepreneur either. If you read my posts I share all of this with you.
If one wanted to cash this discount vouchers that he got via Victorias Secret online store, using scenario I described above he/she should top the vouchers up with $720 000. Markie, pls correct me if I’m wrong with the calculation
I said you could IF YOU WANTED TO and I’ll add IF IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU purchase a Discount Voucher for $75 and the REASON you’d want to do that is to create a unit and then shop later and get paid back your $75 as it trickles in from your shopping at our merchants.
Victoria’s Secret online is the LOWEST percentage merchant we have at 1/2%, so you would have to shop $15,000 at Victoria’s Secret (if that’s the only Lyoness Merchant you’d ever shop at) to get your $75.
Now does that MAKE SENSE to you or is it a ridiculous example?
Hey, maybe you’ve got a lot of girlfriends and $15K at VC works…otherwise I think it’s silly example and has nothing to do with topping up in the first place; you’re trying to make the false assertion that to get value out of the voucher you’d have to pay in an additional $720,000. Give me a break.
As long as Lyoness has directly invested in AUs (by any other name), they will never be compliant.
.. by introducing changes in GTS’s I mentioned before and exchanging Premiums downpayments (real money that were subject of civil court cases Lyoness lost and had to return it to their owners) to valueless Shopping Points and Lyoness vouchers that disappear after 3 yrs.
You do repeat propaganda slogans I say how was it done in practice.
You’ve never heard about Lyoness in Austria being forced to return downpayments on consumer protection law basis? Wanna see court sentences? Lyoness lost a few appeals in court last month and they were published.
The cases are real reason to write explicitly in Lyconet GTC’s ( at least for european members) that Marketer is not a consumer but enterpreneur, not a customer but independent agent.
This bypasses connsumer protection regulations in most european countries.
Hey, $15K to redeem $75 voucher? So my example with Lyconet marketer trying to top up $3600 voucher is be correct and not so silly, isn’t it? 😀
See, I’m answering you politelly, so why don’t you finish the sentence “I would start to consider Lyoness to be pyramid scheme and fraud if…” for me?
Hey the down payment concept is simple. You want to buy a couch for $500 they don’t have the right colour. You give a deposit of $100 and come back 3 weeks later when the couch in your color arrives and pay the other $400.
You don’t come back you lose your $100 bucks, you could also be sued by the merchant if you asked for a weird color they cant sell.
Years ago peole used to do what is called lay away where you purchased an item and paid small amounts over time until it was paid off and you take your item. Was that a scam if you did not fulfill your commitment?
The great thing with Lyoness on the down payment, you are not tied to that store or that couch you can use your payment where ever you want in the shopping community.
In Lyconet the members totatly understand this and are using it to create a business and generate income with risk accepted and if you shop there was no risk. What is wrong with that?
I misunderstood what you were saying about Marketers/entrepreneurs. I thought you were saying the TITLE was no longer Marketer (which it is) but entrepreneur.
So yes you are correct. The CONSUMERS are in Lyoness…that’s where the transactions take place; where all the shopping is.
EVERYONE joins Lyoness first for free and can shop and get benefits… they’re the consuming public. The MARKETERS/ENTREPRENEURS are in Lyconet, because that’s where the network is. What’s the problem with that?
I really cannot comment on things I don’t know much about so I won’t address things about any settled legal situations.
As far as spending $15K to redeem a $75 voucher I believe I made it clear that if you really were going to spend that much a VC then why not?
You’d only do that IF IT MADE SENSE TO YOU.
Same thing with a top up payment but VC is the absolute lowest value merchant at .5%. If you wanted to top up you could use various merchants and get a lot more value.
We have jewelery stores at around 20%. We have building contractors at 10%. Almost every merchant is more than VC.
You don’t have to use all the amount at the same time and the same merchant either. You picked out the worst possible and most ridiculous example.
The problem is, it is ridiculus to do so if you’re Lyconet Marketer that payed in $3600. The only reason to purchase DV then is to aquire units via shopping points and that is exacly what I ment saying that nothing has changed by Lyoness introduction.
Same story as it was with downpayments and AU’s. Same amounts for top up. Just glossary changed.
Link one. As far I know they’re up to 5% (mainly 2%). Find me one building contractor on Lyoness website with 10% cashback.
I can tell you what’s the problem after you reply this:
Haha…VC…Victoria’s “C”-cret….I meant VS of course.
Down payment is simple, and is used in some types of businesses.
But in Lyoness you don’t really order any products.
The primary function of the AU system isn’t to act as a partial payment for a product, but to distribute a part of that payment to other investor consumers.
None of the other down payment solutions do that.
link one from Lyoness website, we’ll see the truth
The problem is, it is ridiculus to do so if you’re Lyconet Marketer that payed in $3600. But they do. Why it makes sense for them? Why do they encourage others to do so? Why Lyoness promotes it as “fast track”?
The only reason to purchase DV then is to aquire units via shopping points and that is exacly what I ment saying that nothing has changed by Lyconet introduction.
Same story as it was with downpayments and AU’s. Same amounts for top up. Just glossary changed.
Hey Tower5, maybe you can take this challenge and finish the sentence:
while Markie keeps pretending I asked him to do so?
Thanks in advance
You continue to ask about $3600 or DVs or whatever and I believe I’ve covered the subject exhaustively enough.
We both know maximum you can use with DV is 5% and 2% is the most common.
Why do yu lie? Is this brainwashing effect? Victorias Secret example was real at list…
You invest $x with Lyoness and then get paid a ROI when enough subsequent investments have been made with Lyoness.
That ROI is paid out of subsequently invested funds (downpayments).
That’s what’s wrong with that.
Nothing justifies investing in AUs and getting paid when enough subsequent investments have been made.
This is the hallmark of a Ponzi scheme, which is at the core of Lyoness’ business model (in its various forms since they’ve rebranded as Lyconet).
Shopping is all very well, ditto what you can and can’t do within the merchant network – but until the AU investment scheme is shut down, Lyoness is just another Ponzi scheme.
I would start to consider Lyoness to be
…….. If Comfort Eagle and the rest of the gang from the land of Oz, as they have indicated have no problems with Lyoness itself based on just the shopping model.
Several statement by Oz and the gang that Lyoness just operating a shopping platform with cash back and points based on shopping alone is perfectly fine.
Oz and the gang also acknowledge that entrepreneurs and adults with free will given by the creator, have the right to exercise this free will, and freedom of choice, enshrined in the constitution and (Ozedit: that’s enough anti-government mumbo jumbo, take it elsewhere)
Look son, if you hate the government that’s fine. But don’t try to justify the Lyoness Ponzi scheme by mangling it.
You have no right to insist information not be distributed freely that makes people aware of the Ponzi schemes you may or may not be promoting.
If said information dampens your efforts to scam people, then so be it.
Why are you so against the distribution of information?
Thanks dad. Advice noted.
Mature as your AU 😛
Since I already have posted something about “communication strategies”, “tricks and techniques”, etc., I can add one more post about the same topic.
“Right place, right method?”
From my point of view, it makes very little sense to use the right methods in the wrong places, or to use the wrong methods in the right places.
That’s one of the reasons for why I don’t like “taught methods” where people have learned some step-by-step methods from a guru or coach. They will usually try to use them in the wrong places.
Specific events or situations may cause people to accept something they normally wouldn’t have accepted. Or it may have the opposite effect, cause people to not accept something they normally would have accepted.
That’s another reason for why I don’t like “taught methods”. They will usually not cover factors like that.
People who buy training or coaching want results, i.e. they want plain and simple methods they believe will lead to results. So coaches and gurus will offer exactly that, “plain and simple methods people love to believe in and can be willing to pay for”.
That’s a third reason for why I don’t like “taught methods”. Some ideas can look rather dysfunctional when you see them being used in real situations.
Some “leadership ideas” will be rather dysfunctional when people try to use them in the wrong places / the wrong situations.
Comfort Eagle…YOU don’t know you’re talking about. I’m getting pretty sick of you making statements that are untrue due to either IGNORANCE or that you INTENTIONALLY LIE. It’s one or the other.
It took me about 2 seconds to pull this one up:
2% Cashback and 26 Shopping points per $150 purchase.
Now the math. a $75 DV creates 50 SP. To get your $75 back when you buy things it’s merely making purchases where you have 50SP coming back to you. At this merchant, not even taking into account the 2% Cashback, a purchase of only $300 would create 52SPs.
If you are using your DV you’d get your entire $75 back. That’s more than 25%, not the bullshi** 5% maximum that “we both know”.
I’ve not lied about this nor anything else.
YOU’RE FULL OF CRAP AND THIS IS PROOF.
hey, why it hurts you so much to write “I would start consider Lyoness ” and “to be pyramid scheme and fraud” as one sentence? What did your coaches to you taht you do so? 😀
Don’t you now think they are brainwashed like hell?
For “Andrew from Australia” (video, different thread), I pointed out that he partly had been affected by the ideas he already had. I listed two of his “leadership articles” (one was about “the power of visualization, etc.”).
For Markie, I pointed out his idea of math.
So I will try to be specific about it (if possible).
What a joke some of you are. I PROVE that jackass is full of crap and your reasoning is brainwashing?
I guess your response is change the subject instead ask Comfort_eagle what motivates him to come here and lie.
This is something I always see when discussing with lyofans:
they try to make an impression of very sane and sober, clever, bussines minded and communicative people, trying to overhelm you with facts, numbers, their experience and success in business (espacially MLM).
But if we go into delails like nearly $1000000 top up for vouchers Lyconet Marketers purchase for $3600 to get to career level 1 they always reject the truth and start to give examples that are not true (20% cashback or so).
This might me taught strategy, but I personally think they are so brainwashed they react with certain answers on certain questions ( arguments) like Pavlov dogs seeing food.
It doesn’t matter which country the person comes from, these guys do and say exactly the same – rejecting the truth and saying some BS, hoping auditory does know the truth.
Perhaps Markie and others thinks he is neutralizing some injury he believes we do here to Lyoness and tries to convince random forum readers we are biassed here, but, for God sake, using false, hyperoptimistic examples is fatal fail!
just link Lyoness merchant where you can get 20% cashback or top up Discount Voucher with only 80% of purchase value and we’ll be done.
I look into Lyoness Discount Vouchers GTC (additional) and in chapter 3 it is written they do not grant more Shopping Points when you top upo the vouchers, the 50 you initially get is all you get. 😀
So, I buy voucher for $75, get 50 SP, then buy sth for 300$ with 2% cashback and get another 52 SP. Now, tell me how I can do DV top up you mentioned here:
Link one lyoness merchant I can do shopping there.
we’re still trying to figure out why an alleged ‘millionaire’ is wasting their time here if this is so legit and then why aren’t you just ‘shopping’ if that itself is so lucrative and the alleged reaason this scam exists.
Made my day 😀
soo markie, if I get 25% and the store only pay 8% to lyo then the math will be a ponzi made from premium downpayments..
Does anyone follow the math, where $150=26SP and $75=50SP?
This is simple: 50SP = 1 AU costs $75
you can use this miney only if you top up pemaining 98% of the purchase = nobody is so stupid to purchase DV for shopping purposes, but to invest in AU’s and get entitled to profit from ponzi scheme after $3600 investment
at merchants mainly this is 2%cashback and say 3SP for 150$ purchase (26SP it is perhaps one or two merchants in the world like that).
So if one wants to “make business” with Lyconet he knows what’s “fast track” is 🙂
I know for a fact the Lyoness training material encourages personal anecdotes to market Lyoness (fictional or otherwise) – I’ve seen them with my own eyes.
I guess I’m dealing with morons here. Probably won’t be wasting my time with you much longer.
Comfort_eagle you toss around lingo like top up when you don’t even know WTF you’re talking about.
You asked me for a link and I gave it to you. You ask it again? Can you read? Do you pay any attention?
I know of only 1 person personally who has used the top up option. EVERYONE else simply shops and gets money back.
I showed you how you can purchase $300 at the example merchant (and of course receive whatever you bought from the merchant because you bought their product and you did so because you wanted it) and IN ADDITION get paid back 28% which is more than you’d have paid for your $75 DV.
That is the fact, that is the math, that’s the proof. Why do you keep changing the subject, accuse me of brainwashing or other such nonsense?
You say idiotic things like nobody is stupid enough to purchase DV for shopping purchases. Uh, that’s the EXACT reason because you can use it in the manner I just demonstrated.
Yes I came to this thread and attempted to enlighten you people with the truth, and I’ve proven myself here with facts, but regardless of that you people either don’t pay attention, don’t read, don’t understand, don’t care, or simply want to bash the company regardless.
In other news, Lyoness is a Ponzi scheme as long as they permit affiliates to directly invest in AUs and pay a ROI from funds subsequently invested in AUs.
Stay tuned for the weather at 9…
we haven’t seen you deal with yourself at all.
I have seen them too, but they are usually easy to handle.
Peter Fuhr “disappeared” from the Lyoness topic after he tried that method in a different thread.
A message to him in one of my posts …
There’s nothing wrong in personal stories, e.g. they can be used to “fill in details”, to make things become more understandable. But MLM teaches distributors to use it to mislead people.
Peter Fuhr made Lyoness merchants look “naive” and “unqualified” because he insisted on the version they had trained him to tell.
You couldn’t expect that idea to work? 🙂
“Attempted to enlighten people” will usually end up exactly as you describe it, as an unsuccessful attempt.
Even “Jehova’s Witnesses” would have managed it better, e.g. they offer some free books or something first before they start to talk about “the light”. And then they ask for some money to cover the printing costs after you have accepted the books. 🙂
If you want to succeed in the Enlightenment business, then you must first enlighten yourself with “How does enlightenment actually work?” / “How do the professional Enlighteners do it?”. And then you will probably send your wife and your daughter out to do it for you. 🙂
You haven’t (tried to enlighten people). The only thing you have done is to repeat some ideas and engage in a couple of person-to-person discussions about details.
“Enlighteners” should normally focus on the MAIN idea, “the one that easily can be accepted by the masses”.
That’s probably how Lyoness tricked you. It probably presented vague ideas about “people will always shop / money back on every purchase”, and that a profit would come almost by itself.
I didn’t say that methods like that would work here. They won’t work, because we already have analysed the details. But that’s how Lyoness “enlightened” you.
It probably added some substance around those main ideas, e.g. “gasoline and groceries” as examples for regular purchases, “clothes, furnitures” for less frequent purchases, and “car purchase” as example for expensive purchases.
It probably added some visual ideas where people could see for their inner eyes how units came trickling in from other people’s shopping, from a growing network of consumers with themselves on the top.
I’ve tried to share my actual experiences, show some blind spots you may have (which is understandable…there is a lot of depth inside our shopping community and marketing network), point out some inaccuracies that I read here, and in general simply act as a messenger of truth.
When I say enlightenment I mean share truth and thoughts you may not have had nor understood.
But instead of acknowledging any points I made, even as far as admitting that I DID in fact, after being challenged, provide a link to a merchant that was not only 5% but 28% member benefit, it was SILENCE as to my truth.
Did anyone say something like (regarding any of the obviously valid points I’ve made), “I didn’t know that”…nope.
I think the other posters on this thread either don’t care about facts or are so full of themselves they can’t acknowledge that, maybe just maybe, they’ve gotten their opinion a bit wrong.
They can’t internalize and reason that there is information and are ideas they’ve not considered and there may be good reasons that smart people with eyes wide open have joined Lyoness.
Instead you all are on the attack, change the subject, blatantly lie, get many of your “facts” wrong (as an aside: although I’ve tried to point out some of the errors you still keep saying the same falsehoods that anyone who understands Lyoness can tell you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about), and some even accuse me of being nothing short of a professional brainwasher, hypnotist, or some other such nonsense.
If someone reads my posts explaining (all true) about our Lyoness shopping community, our 50,000+ merchants, our 4.5 million members, and that we have a TOTALLY FREE lifetime membership where you get MONEY BACK WITH EVERY PURCHASE no strings attached, and if you want to help build the network, called Lyconet, it’s also FREE to join and NO ONE has to purchase anything, not even a Discount Voucher, in order to get all the way to the top of the company’s compensation plan, perhaps they’ll come to understand that the foundations of this company make sense.
As I’m sure someone will point out, many people DO purchase Discount Vouchers to create units in the beginning…it makes sense for some people (not necessarily everyone) to do so.
We create units when we shop and IF IT MAKES SENSE TO SOMEONE THEY HAVE AN OPTION TO CREATE A UNIT FIRST AND SHOP AND GET PAID BACK LATER.
It can make sense IF YOU’RE GOING TO SHOP AND ALSO BUILD OUR SHOPPING AND MERCHANT NETWORK.
If you don’t shop, don’t share, don’t do anything and simply think that if you get units you’re magically going to make a ton of money (which is what a ponzi scheme promises) YOU ARE WRONG.
Lyoness is a BUSINESS. If you don’t understand that you’re incorrect about our company.
Did some people not understand this and did some people join and not have a clue? I’m sure. There are plenty of people who do foolish things. Does that change the facts of how it works? No!
If you join as a networker then like with any business you need to work. It’s that simple.
In other news, Lyoness is a Ponzi scheme as long as they permit affiliates to directly invest in AUs and pay a ROI from funds subsequently invested in AUs.
Stay tuned for the weather at 9…
Great argument there chief.
I really like how you explained how paying cash returns on existing investments (tracked through AUs), using newly invested funds isn’t a Ponzi scheme.
Reminds me of what someone said earlier a few comments up:
As it stands, the core business model of Lyoness “works” as a Ponzi scheme. Within the context of compliance, whatever else is attached to that (the shopping network) is irrelevant.
This “messenger of truth” used very poor examples, e.g. your car purchase example really sucked and made you look brainwashed.
I looked briefly at your example in post #173, but you failed to tell how common 28% member benefits is, i.e. how realistic it would be for a rational consumer to use that method.
That’s where most of Lyoness’ “messengers of truth” have failed. They try to make Lyoness look “good”, but no rational consumer would ever use the same shopping logic.
Consumers won’t save any money if they spend all their money on ARTNGEMS.COM, i.e. if they use member benefits as a primary criterion for what to buy and where to buy it.
A rational consumer would have preferred 28% cashback rather than 26% “benefits” (units) + 2% cashback, “money in hand rather than units in a system”. The irrational ones will prefer units in a system.
It simply wouldn’t make any sense for me to buy anything like that.
It seemed to be a private discussion, e.g. because of expressions like “moron”.
That’s exactly my point. Your “standard of truth” is different from ours, e.g. you’re not using the “rational consumer” standard.
A rational consumer will need to start from a non-Lyoness point of view, e.g. “will it be rational for a consumer to buy multiple ‘Large Sets of Pearls’?”.
The purchase itself will need to be rational. That’s why most people prefer to use the low benefits “gasoline and groceries” as example rather than the high benefits “Large Sets Of Pearls”.
It’s much easier to get other people to accept “gasoline and groceries” and other realistic examples.
That’s “Enlightening 101”, the basic rules for Enlighteners. True enlighteners can’t simply repeat some brainwashed messages, they must carefully select the right types first.
Even “Jehova’s Witnesses” know that they will need to act like “normal people” when they’re out in the field. And some of them do exactly that.
The “Large Sets Of Pearls” example showed how a Lyoness affected consumer would think, in theory. Most consumers will probably return to a normal shopping pattern after some time. But it also showed that consumers would try to get their money back in some way.
That’s exactly why we have dissatisfied Premium members and consumers in multiple countries. People return to a normal, more rational purchase pattern sooner or later.
At the company you’ve linked top up will be 98% of purchase value. You said
Now, how do you think, how many people in this world are dumber thay you are?
You answered something and now trying to convince everybody this answer supports untrue statements you’ve made before.
Theres’s 2% cashback and 26 shopping points which even acording to Lyoness GTC “have no fixed nominal value” so quit playing the same song angain and again, try to focus one more time and answer this:
Another example of completely disregarding the context of my reply. I was challenged to find a merchant that was greater than 5% benefit and in 2 seconds I posted one with 28%.
Now you change the subject instead of staying on topic. Your point is that most consumers are going to buy pearls or whatever that often; it’s not a normal part of their shopping.
I NEVER SAID IT WAS…I SIMPLY GAVE YOU THE EXAMPLE PROVING WHAT I’M SAYING IS TRUE. Again, you don’t acknowledge that you were wrong, you change the subject, refer to brainwashing, etc. Laughable.
your inane arguments are driving me across the bend.
you lyoness/lyconet faithfuls keep beating the same drum from thread to thread.
1] no one argues about the shopping side of lyoness being legal. no one minds your 2-5% cashback [in common shopping transactions] or even your >20% ‘reward’ back [in rare shopping transactions].
no one minds or argues your 0.5% friendship bonus, when free shoppers invite more free shoppers.
this^ is all superbly dandy and lyoness can continue on this path, with trumpets blaring and herbert friedl dancing. its all good.
2] inspite of all your ‘explanations’ you are unable to convince [me at least] as to WHY ‘MARKETERS/ENTREPRENEURS’ need to make such heavy advance shopping payments, and from WHERE does lyoness generate the money to pay these entrepreneurs ‘commissions’ for bringing in more advance shopping paying entrepreneurs.
THIS is the crux of the issue and you wont answer it.
it does NOT matter if It Is Possible to create AU units via shopping, the crux of the matter is:
seeing that lyoness has created a web of companies internationally, and created a maze of accounting, it is DIFFICULT for countries to PIN lyoness down. this is the reason why lyoness drags on and on, unstoppable.
it is not due to any merit of its business module. lyoness is just an elaborate complexly arranged pyramid/ponzi scheme, and depends on faithfuls like you to pull fresh money into their bank accounts.
even if you consider AU investments to be advance shopping downpayments the expected cashback from future purchases [mostly between 2-5%] will not be Enough to pay commissions Today.
the commissions on the ‘entrepreneur’ side are paid from the money of fresh investors and that is the The End, Finis, Sampla.
get rid of the lyconet side and come back to raving reviews from your worst critics!
otherwise, do all of us a favor and Zip Up.
Must be some mistakes in translation Lyoness did while translating theit GTC to my mother tongue or something, because I can see it is stated different in docs I have.
I doublechecked english version of GTC on that and surprisingly to me DV could be used with “only” 72% top up at this merchant indeed, so to top up $3600 spent on DV (use own money) to get to Lyconet career level 1, somebody should spend ca $13k on necklesses or over half million USD on lingeries.
Now, does it change that
Not at all, primary function of DV is to sell AU’s undercover and average top up will be ca 95% of purchase value. And this does not make you brainwashed any less.
Accepted. I didn’t read the whole dialogue (multiple posts), I only looked at the example.
But it doesn’t change anything, does it?
My point was about the “rational consumer” standard. I would most likely have arrived at the same conclusion if I carefully had checked the whole dialogue.
Or have I misinterpreted something here?
I have made the following statements:
1. Cashback should make sense to most rational consumers.
2. The AU system won’t make much sense to most rational consumers.
3. A rational consumer should normally prefer 28% cashback instead of 26% benefits + 2% cashback, “money in hand rather than units in a system”.
It should normally be much easier to get other people to accept the idea of “money back on every purchase”, easier than a vague idea where people first will receive units, and then can use units as partial payment for something they normally wouldn’t have bought. 🙂
Thank-you for engaging in a much more meaningful discussion.
Agreed! Would a rational consumer take a free membership that gives them cashback with every purchase and no strings attached? I think most people would…makes sense.
Agreed! The AUs are ONLY for the MARKETERS who want to be rewarded for encouraging shopping by bringing on shoppers, businesses, and other networkers (perhaps) who want to be involved in setting up this business worldwide.
The AUs are the ACCOUNTING METHOD which contains a “little, little piece” of the shopping volume. AUs are NOT given to the shoppers (rational consumers), not discussed with the shoppers, the shoppers don’t know a THING about the network…they just know CASHBACK with every purchase.
Additionally, they get Shopping Points which can be used for discounts on future purchases…not to confuse things here but these Shopping Points are DIFFERENT from the Shopping Points that create units.
Just remember that SHOPPERS (people not in Lyonet) have NOTHING TO DO WITH AUs. It never enters their thought process in any way.
Agreed! Shoppers get up to 5% cashback with their free membership. The rest of the “Member Benefit” which is the money paid by the merchant is used to go to the AUs in the system (if someone is NOT in Lyconet those generally benefit the first Lyconet member upline).
Still, would a rational consumer take cashback with a free card? Yes. Would a Lyconet member (who is also a rational consumer) shop at a place with an additional 26% Member Benefit. You bet.
In other words it makes sense for everyone, merchants make a sale, shoppers get cashback and Lyconet benefits with AU creation.
thats to bad, theres nothing green about lyo, only for the people in the top making green from this ponzi scam
Hahahahahahahaha…OMG did you stay up all night to think of such a funny comment? Hahahahahaha…can’t stop laughing…
Shoppers could make down payments / earn AUs through shopping up until November 8 2014, IIRC?
So most existing shoppers should normally know about the network.
In other news, Lyoness is a Ponzi scheme as long as they permit affiliates to directly invest in AUs and pay a ROI from funds subsequently invested in AUs.
Stay tuned for the weather at 9…
There was no distinction between shoppers and marketers until then; everyone had to join the network. That’s why Lyconet was launched so shoppers could be separated and not create units (and save everyone from the confusion).
OK Oz I’m going to address this. Here’s where we have a disagreement and also where I believe the distinction between creating AUs in Lyoness/Lyconet differs from an investment and a Ponzi scheme.
First the definition of an investment:
An investment carries risk…you buy something and hope it goes up in value and you make a profit. If it goes down all the way in value you could lose all the money you invest. Risk is the key to making something an “investment”.
In Lyoness/Lyconet when someone creates an AU (you say, incorrectly “invests”) THERE IS NO RISK. That’s the key. Regardless of anything else, if there is ultimately no risk, then no investment. This is my first premise and that’s part 1 of why I do NOT believe this is a Ponzi.
Why is there no risk? Because even if the person never ever brings in another person they can use the money they sent to Lyoness as downpayments for shopping (future purchases) or they can also do what’s called “re-cash” and get paid back actual money as they shop.
When someone chooses to create units, whether using the old term (pre-November 8) which was partially-paid gift card order, or the new term Discount Voucher (which is much more clearly understood) they AGREE to the terms and conditions that if they want to use the funds in the manner I described they CAN.
There is NO RISK to anyone creating AUs in Lyoness because the funds can abe used for additional purchases or they can get the money back as they shop. NO RISK MEANS NO INVESTMENT.
A theoretical example: If there were such a business where you could buy, say, a gold coin, for $1000 and no matter what happens to the price of gold, the worst thing that could happen is the company will allow you to use the entire $1000 value of the gold when you buy things you want to buy, until you use up the entire $1000…
This is a no-risk purchase; it’s not an “investment” because you have no way to lose what you spent. The gold you purchase will always have a minimum value to you of the $1000 you gave that company. That is 1 reason this is not a Ponzi.
Secondly, as I’ve stated before, a HALLMARK of a Ponzi scheme is that it takes continual NEW people giving money to the people in the beginning and IF THERE ARE NO NEW PEOPLE DO TO THAT, THE NEW ONES HAVE NO WAY TO RE-COUP WHAT THEY INVESTED.
It’s called an “endless chain” where you can run out of investors…and thus it’s an illegal Ponzi.
In Lyoness, if let’s say TODAY they NEVER allowed anyone to send money to the company to create an AU there will still be money flowing through the system continually because it flows in from shopping, paid by the merchants.
It is not an endless chain…in fact if they now closed the company to AU creation and also did not allow any new people at all to become Lyoness members, the flow of money still happens because of the shopping.
Compare this to all the actual Ponzi schemes I read about on this board. I will not name any of them but I’m sure many of you are familiar with some of them. They peter out beacause they start running out of new people to “invest” and then people start saying they’re not getting their ROI they were promised, etc.
That’s not the case here in Lyoness; the more shopping, the more money flows in as commissions to the network.
Now, I already know what you’re going to say. You’ll say that if someone wants to get their money out they’d have to spend X amount of dollars in shopping (and you’ll probably pick out the lowest % merchant we have) and it will be some big number. But even if you do that IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT CAN BE DONE.
If someone was dumb enough to create an AU and they had no intention of shopping or doing anything in our business…then they’d have to do a bunch of their own shopping, yes. But STILL the money CAN be used.
Just yesterday I booked hotel rooms through Hotels.com through Lyoness and if I wanted to redeem some of my partial payments I could.
Typical shopping allows people to do this if they want to, so legally it differentiates Lyoness from something illegal.
I anticipate some of you jumping off the subject here, making wild examples and accusations and all sorts of non-relevant statements.
I will NOT respond to personal attacks nor to anything that is stupid or inflammatory. If you guys want to discuss this I’m willing. But I’ve stated the basic reasons why this is above-board.
You’re going to crap on about risk? Come on son, that’s straight out of Ponzi excuses 101.
Identifying a Ponzi scheme has nothing to do with risk or whatever else is attached to it (the shopping network in this case).
If you want to identify a Ponzi scheme, go over the business model and look for existing investors (those who already bought AUs) being paid ROIs with subsequently invested funds (people who invested in AUs after them).
Furthermore investing in Lyoness is simple and has nothing to do with shopping.
I invest $x with Lyoness, once a fixed number of subsequent $x investments have been made, Lyoness pay me a greater than 100% ROI. Not the merchants, not the shopping network… Lyoness.
That ROI money comes from the subsequently invested funds, making Lyoness a Ponzi scheme.
It has nothing to do with risk or shopping or hotels etc. etc.
Then, as has been asked many times before, why have the AU Ponzi scheme to begin with?
Conclusion: The shopping network isn’t viable without the Ponzi network backend.
It exists solely so people like you can run around the internet engaging in discussions like this:
Based on its business model, Lyoness is a Ponzi scheme.
SHOPPING SHOPPING SHOPPING!
What about the Ponzi scheme side of the business though?
SHOPPING SHOPPING SHOPPING!
See the 1000+ comments in our original Lyoness review, you’re repeating the same arguments there (which is why people bring up the marketing material, because it gets repetitive when you engage in the above italicized conversation for the umpteenth time).
The attempt to justify the AU Ponzi scheme by blabbing on about shopping is just as irrelevant now as it was then.
That idea makes very little sense for a rational merchant?
Why should a merchant pay repeated “recruitment rewards” to Premium Members, e.g. the 26% in your example? It’s an “unnecessary cost” for the merchant.
But Artngems.com doesn’t seem to be a real business anyway. Its only visitors seem to come from Lyoness. It’s probably organized by a Lyoness member (RICHARD HEFTEL) for some purpose, e.g. to be used as an example for benefits.
My guess is that artngems.com has some type of recruitment function. Everything led to “Lyoness members. Contact us for more info” (you cannot order anything directly there).
Fake offers like that one will actually lower the usefulness of the shopping community, and make it become less attractive to “rational consumers”.
Lyoness cleary have some risks, e.g. profit will be depending on other people’s investments or purchases.
Here’s a former SEC lawyer explaining “unregistered securities” (after Zeek’s shutdown):
Lyoness has both recruitment and investment, so it’s a hybrid type.
It’s the same scam as the flexkom paradox.
Why would merchants give even more to nobodies in a scam when they can save by giving the regular discount without the scam. There are no merchants.
I had never hear of that business before I just went to the Lyoness merchant website and saw it and used it as an example.
Lyoness makes SENSE for a merchant, are you kidding me? How much does it cost to create a new customer? How valuable is customer loyalty?
For a few % AFTER YOU’VE ALREADY SOLD SOMETHING AND COLLECTED THE MONEY you make a sale.
Hey, you can question some things about Lyoness but this one is a no-doubt benefit for the merchant…I’ve not heard anyone ever question that.
Nope, it’s NOT about finding “investors”, it’s about shopping and shopping dollars. And don’t call me “son”.
No matter how many times you keep making the same argument I guess no matter how many ways I explain the difference you keep insisting that it has to do with finding new people.
What about my example of NO new people and NO AU creation up front and STILL the network creates income because of the shopping?
WHY do you continue to ignore my assertion here? THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than a Ponzi!
Don’t come here with Flexkom bullshi** and don’t say there are no merchants. That is complete and utter crap. Get out of here with your stupid and false comment.
NOPE, wrong again. It can all depend on THEIR OWN purchases if they want to do it the absolute worst possible way. It doesn’t depend on ANYONE ELSE.
I invest $x with Lyoness and once enough new AU investments have been made, Lyoness pay me a greater than 100% cash ROI.
That has absolutely nothing to do with shopping.
As I’ve mentioned many, many times before, alternative AU method of creation does not negate the direct investment into AUs, with Lyoness paying a 100% ROI once enough subsequent direct AU investments have been made.
That’s paying existing investors with newly invested funds, making Lyoness a Ponzi scheme. Whatever else you can and can’t do in Lyoness is irrelevant.
Behind every Lyoness top earner is a swatch of investors who directly invested in AUs – for the simple reason that it’s the core of the business… and again, has nothing to do with shopping.
What you can and can’t do does not negate the obvious unregistered securities offered by Lyoness through direct AU investment.
This isn’t some zero-sum equation whereby you can balance out Ponzi investment fraud with shopping or the merchant network.
And THAT is the core of the disagreement.
You say, “As I’ve mentioned many, many times before, alternative AU method of creation does not negate the direct investment into AUs” and I disagree. I say the creation of the AUs upfront, given the no-risk parameters I’ve mentioned is a different animal.
Regardless of the payout amount, it’s different.
I can create an AU from my shopping, with $75 paid by the merchants, and with enough subsequent shopping I can make many times the $75 that way as well.
It’s all the shopping volume of myself and my team with a “little, little piece of that volume” and such that creates the payouts to me. That’s NOT a Ponzi.
There is no disagreement.
I invest $x with Lyoness and once enough subsequent investments have been made, Lyoness pay me a greater than 100% ROI.
That’s pure Ponzi and has nothing to do with shopping.
No it isn’t. But that’s not what I’m calling out as a Ponzi is it. Cool story bro.
Right, it’s not a “zero sum”. EVERYONE can make money because EVERYONE shops. You’ve swerved into the truth, the crux of the entire concept.
I invest $x with Lyoness and Lyoness pay me a greater than 100% ROI once enough new AU investments have been made.
That’s a Ponzi scheme.
(Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt about real estate removed. Anything further from you that does not address the AU investment scheme will be marked as spam.)
What “YOU” can or might do has nothing to do with what others “CAN” and “ARE” doing, which is investing $x with Lyoness, allowing Lyoness paying them a greater than 100% ROI once enough new AU investments have been made.
Lyoness is then compounding the problem by virtue of it “NOT” moving to stamp out the practice.
good arguments markie, you think ‘well’ except that, unfortunately, you refuse to think ‘straight’.
i agree every lyoness member can earn cashback, i agree money invested in AU’s can be redeemed through long term shopping [impractical but not illegal].
please address the recruitment commissions paid out to AU investors. WHERE does that money come from?
in MLM commissions can only be paid out on product sales. investments for future discounts do not qualify as a ‘product’. internationally, can you point out to some MLM case law which has concluded that ‘downpayment for future shopping’ or ‘discount vouchers’ are a ‘product’.
we all know gerald nehra, the US MLM attorney, to be a master of psuedo compliance.
yet, when it comes to MLM programs that ‘sell’ discount vouchers/gift certificates/downpayments, as their product, nehra strongly advises against such MLM’s.
commissions cannot be paid merely on the flow of money without a product or service being ‘delivered’. the mere probability of a product purchase at a Future Date is not a bonafide reason to pay commissions Today.
a discount voucher is merely a piece of paper promising some future benefit, when certain conditions are met. it is not a ‘complete’ financial transaction.
are you understanding this markie?
The main problem with your argument is that some can make more money than others because they invest $x with Lyoness, allowing Lyoness to pay them a greater than 100% ROI once enough new AU investments have been made.
even if we humor the lyoness/lyconet investors by playing along with the idea that ‘discount vouchers’ are ‘products’, there are legal issues with this premise.
for any MLM to withstand a court inquiry into its legitimacy, Buy Back is a required consumer protection.
in lyoness investments made into AU’s are Not Refundable, in case an investor wants to leave. the only choice the investor has, is to redeem the money by investing more money into shopping, even if he does not want to use the lyoness merchant network anymore. thus an investor is ‘trapped’, which is Not consumer ‘protection’.
now, lyoness investors may argue that AU investments in advance payments are non refundable, since they are bought for ‘self consumption’ and not for ‘sale’.
for a court to accept a ‘self consumption’ argument, the amount of purchase should be ‘reasonable’, it should be something a customer can ‘normally’ be expected to consume.
in lyoness/lyconet investing 2000$/3000$ to accrue a [mostly] 2-5% cash back, is way too large an ‘inventory loading’ to explain self consumption.
it is obvious that the efficient and easier method to get this investment back, is by recruiting more investors and earning recruitment commissions.
thus, if the discount bought and sold and commissioned in lyoness/lyconet is Not a legal product, lyoness is illegal.
thus, even if by some stretched logic, if some morons believe discount vouchers to be ‘products’ the lyoness recruitment side cannot withstand a ‘burnlounge’ like inquiry about ‘reasonable’ self consumption [in burnlounge the court found that investments in the mogul packages were too high to explain self consumption].
like in burnlounge, where the mogul program was shut down and the retail program was allowed to continue [burnlounge failed this test], a court should stop the lyconet side of things and watch how well the shopping side fares.
or lyoness can themselves get rid of the lyconet side, and shut the whole world up. But They Wont, and we have to wonder why they wont, since its all about the shopping!
Then why does the Lyoness system reward the recruiter rather than the customer?
26% reward to the recruiter (“unnecessary cost”)
2% reward to the customer (“poor discount”)
Lyoness generally have very poor results when it comes to shopping. That’s why “Andrew from Australia” lost money, because Lyoness didn’t deliver the promised results.
Lyoness hasn’t really worked in ANY country. It works as a recruitment scheme for investors, but it fails on the idea of “people will always shop”.
That’s why I said that a “true Enlightener” must carefully select examples THEY can accept rather than examples HE can accept.
Lyoness “enlightened” you by showing you reflections of a money making system where you could earn “residual income for life / residual income for generations to come”, where you could become “the founder of our family’s wealth” in the eyes of your grandchildren. 🙂
if lyoness pays hefty cashback to free shoppers, lesser people will be encouraged to join the investment side of the business where there are more earnings.
it’s obvious the shopping side of lyoness is merely a facade to appear legitimate.
That’s where it will fail for most investors. They simply can’t afford to put in that extra amount of money. And you completely ignore the risk of a potential shutdown / other regulatory problems.
I gave you a valid explanation from a SEC lawyer in post #217. He didn’t mention risk as a core criterion. But you seem to ignore explanations when they don’t support your view.
I believe it’s time to stop the discussion. You can probably post a summary of how you see it (or something similar).
“Eagerness to enlighten other people” simply isn’t a good tool for “enlighteners”. A true enlightener will need to find better tools
We see Lyoness as a fraud, e.g. the down payments don’t really have any meaningful function in business. They are investments / participation fee in disguise. And that’s how regulators see it too.
I have used the terms “rational consumer”, “rational merchant”, etc. to indicate that it is about rationality rather than about “hopes and dreams”.
The experienced investors in “Dragon’s Den, Canada” found the whole idea rather distasteful when they looked at it from a rational point of view (24:45 into the video). And I completely agree with them.
That’s how real investors sees it. They don’t see it as something they will feel comfortable with selling to friends and business friends. They focus on realities rather than on dreams.
indeed you should just leave. no one is buying your crap.
Conversly: The investors on Shark Tank (Dragons Den USA) find the company that you are trying to copy and bastardize (with your pyramid recruiting scheme) find it quite brilliant.
This is as illustrated by their direct involvement with them through consulting, branding and training programs.
I am NOT talking about paid endorsement’s either. I am talking about business relationships.
(to answer the question before it asked) Even if these people WERE “paid to endorse” or speak at events, I have a very hard time believing that any one of them, including the BRANDING experts would ever risk their Billion dollar fortunes by attaching their name to something that would do anything but lend THEM credibility.
Based on their track record, I dont believe they would do that for ANY amount of money.
The point is: You guys are grasping at straws. You are taking a market that is so lucrative and accessable that a 12 year old can amass fortunes in, and screwing it up royally with some dumbass, greedy, irresponsible, paid for recruiting, dime a dozen, signup game.
You SERIOUSLY have to go out of your way to F@%K up an opportunity in the thriving e-commerce market… SERIOUSLY!!!!
M Norway I was thinking it’s time to end it as well.
I think we’ve discussed this from many angles and I do understand the perspectives of many of you.
I maintain a different perspective on what the AUs represent. I say they are a downpayment that can be used during future purchases as a worst-case scenario an are not an “investment”.
Many of you disagree and I understand your reasoning but again I think you miss it by a little bit, and that’s an important miss.
Regardless, thanks for the discussion. I hope I’ve at the very least explained how a reasonable, ethical person can join Lyoness and can promote the business model, especially if they are doing so to build a shopping community.
Undoubtedly there are people who joined who thought it was a money game and are pissed they haven’t gotten a payout (I guess). Well, they didn’t understand it’s a business and you’ve got to work!
As far as Dragon’s Den…what a laugh that was. That jackass on the program was a complete idiot and totally misrepresented the company.
Also, what benefit would it have been to have the Dragons join him?
Wrong guy, wrong forum, wrong explanation of the company, wrong timing…it couldn’t have been more ridiculous if a Hollywood scriptwriter had written it as a parody.
I also want to let you know that to eliminate much of the confusion about the units as we’ve discussed ad nauseum, our current efforts are not to have new people join as Premium members at $3600, but instead, IF THEY WANT TO, simply get a single unit for a $75 Discount Voucher purchase, and then focus on shopping with our merchants until you get your $75 back.
Then get another unit (if you want) and do it again. It’s simpler to understand, encourages people to get shopping, and takes out the underlying basis of the discussion we’ve had here.
I can tell you this, many of the merchants I work with are very, very happy with the new customers and repeat customers they have gotten because of Lyoness.
It’s a business model that works if implemented correctly.
Regards to all of you. Markie out.
So in conclusion, Lyoness is swell if you ignore the core AU Ponzi investment scheme.
Lyoness spokesman? 😀
…and that’s why it’s available on Lyconet website and promoted as “fast track to success”
I think we can all agree it’s over and out for Lyoness.
Personally, I don’t think Freidl will await a verdict in the Austrian criminal case against him, but rather will pull the plug on his meticulously developed house of cards, and continue under a different name.
He’s done it before, after he started feeling the heat when operating GTS (Erin Trade) and Galvagin.
The severely deluded members (read: victims), unfortunately, blindly follow their leaders into the latest edition.
It will take us a few years to figure out, let alone the authorities and traditional media. All very sad.
recruiting is reeeeeeeeeally taking a hit if this turd is still here defending this.
yep, sure sounds like he is! 🙂
that’s better. but also ensure your’e not paying out commissions on these 75$ investments of advance discount payments.
pay out cashback percentages as commissions, ONLY when an investor actually buys a product. you could give investors higher cashback than free shoppers, in return for their prepayment.
also, what happens now to all the suckers that invested the $3600 in your system? whats your plan for them ? refunds or what? will lyoness have the funds to repay all premium members?
or as wiggy suggests will you:
so markie, whats the whole story. don’t run out on us!
Don’t know what the fuss is about. I paid AU for premium April ’12; shop woolies; fuel Caltex; toys BCF,Supercheap, Rebel, Amart; good butcher; Hotel.com, Helloworld travel; more than weeks wages recycled through purchase account each month. 18 friends doing similiar !!
If it is no good, I wonder what is better.
The AU investment scheme.
Shopping doesn’t cancel out investing AUs and getting paid to recruit others who do the same.
Shame Lyoness never partnered with a company offering reading classes, evidently alot of Lyoness affiliates need them.
If you don’t specify which country, the information will be rather meaningless.
The fuss is about that down payments for Premium memberships can be seen as investment / participation fee in a pyramid scheme.
The only way you realisticly can make a profit from it is to recruit minimum 4 other investors, and THEY will need to recruit minimum 4, and THEY will need to recruit minimum 4, etc.
It means that most of your 18 friends actually will lose money (if they don’t recruit the required 4), while you will make a profit from it.
It can be seen as a LOSS if an investor doesn’t get his money back within reasonable time, or if the investor will need to put more money in to get his first investment back.
again, then why not just ‘shop’ and not join the scheme if it’s really that valuable?
you scammers want to keep touting the ‘shopping’ line and you’re shooting yourself in the foot by doing so every single time.
He’s talking about Australia.
Then he already has a pyramid scheme case he can look at.
The issue isn’t about whether HE personally feel Lyoness is some type of “God’s Gift to the World”, but about whether IT can be seen as harmful to investors or consumers.
ACCC, and hopefully the court, don’t see Meek as the “Center of the Universe”, as some type of blueprint for good legal decisions or as a blueprint for rational consumer.
BTW I like the way ACCC activities are organized – they did some screening, then triggered court case, publishing step by step whats going on and after one year there’s conclusion expected. Well done!
Here’s a link to the ACCC case, Australia:
It was picked up from Wikipedia. Nothing has really happened since the trial ended in late July.
The website has expandable lists of documents:
* Court Events and Orders
* Documents Filed
Any word on when a judgement is due?
Could be today, could be next week, could be next month etc. Judgement reserved is entirely at the discretion of the Judge hearing the case.
Wouldn’t it be funny if the judge dismisses all pyramid claims? There are so many ‘expert’ MLM keyboard judges on here.
I joined Lyoness as a shopper last year and signed up my business as a merchant in December. so far this year we have had $105K in sales. 93% of which are new business and it has cost $7375 in commission.
I don’t know anything about AUs (never heard that term before). I think they must be part of Lyconet (the recruitment marketers that sign up SME businesses like mine).
From memory it cost me about $3.2k to join up the business. I got a whole lot of advertising stuff (signage, pens etc) a counter tablet, internet advertising and cards. that’s the same amount I used to spend on magazine advertising and we would get back about $50K from those ads.
So as far as I am concerned, as a loyalty merchant, Lyoness has increased my business and I hope it continues as is.
Groupon had to stop paying 2% cashback on the Woolies gift cards that they sold at 5-7.5% discount because lyoness members where spreading the word and buying them in the droves.
Can’t wait for the findings 🙂
Not so much funny as the complete ignoring of evidence and Lyoness’ Ponzi scheme business model.
Which is pretty much what the entire ACCC case Lyoness is about.
Congratulations, here’s a cookie for being entirely irrelevant.
Just another Lyoness merchant turning a blind eye to the AU Ponzi scheme, without which Lyoness would cease to exist.
So it sounds like you will not accept the judge if he finds that there is no ponzi or no pyramid?
If that is the case then maybe you should look at doing something else.
I was never offered to invest in AU. All I did was try it as a shopper and then saw how it worked for merchants and joined up.
Obviously, if it is a PONZI then it will be shut down because people with a lot more grey matter between the ears than you and I have been debating this. if it isn’t shut down then maybe you should consider shutting down.
I thought PONZI schemes fall over after 12-24 months. Lyoness has been going for 12 years.
I was asked to join MAPS advertising but I think that is a PONZI.
Then you thought wrong.
The Madoff Investments ponzi ran for over 20 years.
There are no hard and fast rules or statistics which can be applied to ALL ponzis and pyramid schmes or ponzi / pyramid hybrids, especially in the internet era where those behind a scheme can simply move on to another marketplace when the scheme begins to fail.
The ACCC case is a pyramid scheme case.
Lyoness CAN be seen as a Ponzi scheme, a type of fraudulent investment scheme. They CAN be based on deceptive promises rather than real payouts — a system that will prevent it from being drained for money. But it can still be under-balanced.
$3,000 down payments will generate payouts to people in upline, not based on money coming in from merchants. So Lyoness is using money coming in from new investors to pay the old ones.
It also have a reinvestment component, where internal payouts of “Loyalty Credits” can be reinvested directly in additional AU units.
So Lyness is most likely under-balanced, and unable to pay all investors = it’s a pyramid/Ponzi hybrid. But the pyramid scheme part is more easy to detect than the Ponzi scheme part.
When did you join?
The AU investments were marketed relatively openly in 2012 and early 2013, but became much more disguised sometimes in 2013 because of all the resistance.
If you joined before November 2014, then you have at least heard about Accounting Units and down payments. You may not have been offered it directly when you signed up, but the information has most likely been available.
Oops, I found the answer in post #259:
You should probably clarify that one?
93% new business = $97,650
You probably meant “So far this year, I have sold for $105K through Lyoness, and it cost me $7,375 in commissions”?
If you call it “new business”, then it normally means that you didn’t have any of them as customers before you joined Lyoness as a merchant. It also mean that none of your old customers have been interested.
Sorry I don’t know how to do the green box reply.
I joined as a shopper in mid 2014 and as a merchant in late 2014. No one offered me anything to do with accounting units. I went to one meeting where they showed the 3 different parts of the business. Shopper, SME and Marketer.
I loathe network marketing and didn’t pay attention when they started talking about lyconet. They said that it was all new and that it had been re-modeled in November.
I just joined it to see if it would work for my business and it has exceeded my expectations.I was told that the marketers earn money for joining merchants and from shopping volume commissions paid by the merchants and their customers.
so will you accept that it isn’t a pyramid if the judge finds that?
if this is a PONZI then why is the ACCC only going after a pyramid?
yeah sorry that is so far this year through lyoness. We run a retail business that has had a lyoness turnover of $105K. 93% were new customers and 7% of the total comes from repeat loyalty customers.
That is a 10% increase in trade for us. so as far as I am concerned we have benefited from joining up our business.
from memory we have had a handful of sales to people that saw the advertising on the counter and then pulled out a card. so there were a few that were not drawn in because of lyoness.
most of our lyoness sales have been through the net mainly in Australia but we have had some from the US & Europe.
the lyoness people are very confident that they will win the case
nothing to do with the AU investment scheme.
Here’s another cookie for being utterly irrelevant.
As for the Ponzi issue, Lyoness is a Ponzi scheme by virtue of its business model. They take newly invested funds in AUs to pay off existing investors.
Regulation isn’t an exact science. That said, a Judge would have to be pretty blind not to see the Ponzi upon analysis of Lyoness business model.
Heck, why do you think they renamed everything last year? Things were getting hot in Ponzi land…
Oh and “if they were a Ponzi scheme they would have been shut down by now” doesn’t carry much weight. Plenty of schemes go bust before regulators get to them.
It has already been established that Lyoness operated a pyramid scheme in Norway in 2012 and 2013, but not in the first months of 2014.
A judgment from Australia will simply be added to that reality. I will need to read the order first, but I have no problem accepting court orders. And neither should you have.
I doubt they will look at Ponzi scheme issues. ACCC isn’t the right type of authority for that, and neither was Lotteritilsynet.
“Ponzi scheme” isn’t clearly defined in any law, so a Ponzi scheme with a recruitment component will be identified as a pyramid scheme in most countries.
Highlight the text you wish to quote, and press the (Q) under the user name for that comment.
It may result in comments ending up in moderation queue because of the link to the comment you’re quoting. So many of us will edit the quoted part and remove that link (remove the whole anchor html tag).
Green box without a link looks like this if manually entered:
<blockquote> quoted text </blockquote>
Or like this:
<strong> user name </strong>
quoted text </blockquote>
So you have hardly signed up any customers yourself in 9 months, if I have understood it correctly?
Or it may of course be related to the type of business you’re running, with very few repeated sales to the same customers.
For most businesses, the 80/20 rule will be relevant = “80% of the revenue comes from 20% of the customers, 20% of the revenue comes from 80% of the customers”.
It doesn’t need to be exactly 80% and 20%, but most businesses will have sales figures within that range = more revenue from repeated sales or large orders than from more “random” ones.
You have most of your Lyoness related revenue from the random orders.
If you joined as a customer in mid 2014, then you have most likely been informed about the AU units — how you as a shopper could generate accounting units from your own purchases and from purchases made by people you introduce.
But it may not have been actively promoted in mid 2014 in certain English speaking countries.
It’s a bad sign if they didn’t tell you about it, if they tried to “hide” one part of the program and only showed you other parts. The part they tried to hide was the pyramid scheme part. It means that the merchant who recruited you as a customer didn’t feel comfortable telling customers about it.
As a merchant, you will need to feel comfortable with the products you’re selling and the loyalty programs you recommend to your own customers.
That’s where it has failed for many merchants, they “love the idea” when they are being introduced to it but they will eventually start to hate it when they’re exposed to questions they don’t like to answer.
Pure conjecture, innuendo, mind reading, self serving BS
Did you need 11 days to come to that conclusion? 🙂
That post was a reply to Rich’s post 266, if I have interpreted it correctly. It won’t make much sense if we separate it from that context — if we separate from the whole dialogue with multiple posts.
It’s possible that the AU investment system was marketed less openly in 2014 thann in 2013 and 2012.
Article updated with judgement date of 23rd October.
finally! i thought the judge died or something.
You might need to update this to read that Lyoness has been cleared of any wrongdoing. The ACCC has been ordered to pay costs and will not appeal.
Now I can happily go ahead at being an SME and shopper knowing that we have full support of the keyboard judges.
Although, I doubt that the American guy pretending to be an Aussie will accept that his opinions are irrelevant. Have a box full of cookies OZ!
Lyoness’ AU investment scheme is and has always been a Ponzi scheme.
That’s not opinion, that’s fact. The Norway decision didn’t change that, and neither does today’s decision.
You accept investments from affiliates and pay them out fixed ROIs sourced from subsequent investments? You’re running a Ponzi scheme.
Sadly today’s decision screws Australian investors who lost large sums of money in the scheme. It’s not just a loss for the ACCC.
But by all means, don’t let that stop you celebrating the perpetuation of Ponzi fraud.
Lyoness is dying on the vine.
True they were acquitted as a ponzi scheme in AU. But ask the 180,000 people here in the USA that invested in units and for over a year have not seen one dollar in ROI.
Last Nov they had 165,000 members of which more then half quit. Today where the total has not even hit 200,000 members.
So In one year they have lost at least 100,000 members and added less then 30,000 new members.
They change the shopping requirements almost daily and oh yeah where is the MASTERCARD. One year later and the affiliate card is still not been issued.
Shopping is harder then ever to do!
Three years on and still crap. People trying to get me to sign up to “CashBack Card” after Ive already paid $4500 for a Premiuim membership years agao. Oh, sorry – your a “Lite” member now.
No new shoppers and all other shoppers dropped off or lost their intrest in it. Once it went to the ACCC it died a slow, long and agonising death.
CASHBACK WORLD is the new thing. Get on it. Yeah, nah!