Rippln CEO apologizes for “failed expectations”
In the next 30 days, a new social network is going to be released to the world.
You will hear about it on your favorite blogs and on TV.. The news will cover it… And not only will your friends and family members be talking about it, but complete strangers will also approach you about it…
Because the technology involved will not only change how we communicate, it will also change how commerce, both online and offline, happens.
-Official Rippln marketing copy, supplied to affiliates circa June 2013 and reproduced on over 200,000 webpages (Google)
To borrow a tired joke; If I was to look up the hype in an MLM dictionary, I’d probably see a copy of Rippln’s logo. No further explanation required.
After going live with the marketing copy above and copious similar efforts, here’s a rundown of the Rippln MLM business opportunity today.
Just short of two months ago Rippln’s Facebook page came alive with marketing for a smart watch. ‘Rippln beats Apple to market with James Bond style Voice activated smart watch‘ the hype machine megaphones blared across the internet.
Third-party reviews however were not so flattering. Edward Baig from USA Today wrote:
It’s got some cool features. But it’s also a pricey product with limited mainstream appeal, and one with some features that were either too complicated or didn’t work at all.
Will Greenwald from PCMag was also critical of the watch, writing
All told, the Martian Passport Watch is an interesting novelty, but it’s too expensive and too limited to justify the $300 price. Its OLED screen and speakerphone function feel more like a next-gen smart watch from the late 1990s or early 2000s than a must-have accessory for 2013.
Meanwhile the general consensus amongst Rippln affiliates, as observed on various social media platforms, was that essentially you were paying $300 for a bluetooth extension for your phone.
Rippln’s smartwatch, manufactured by Martian through a Kickstarter project, went live in September and… well I’m not really sure what happened after that. Come September the buzz surrounding the watch had died out completely.
Following the coming and going of the Martian SmartWatch, Rippln then introduced the Photo Guessaroo app.
A few weeks later after Photo Guessaroo was approved by Apple for distribution through their App Store, here’s how that’s going:
The latest is what appears to be a task-orientated personal development course, created by Rippln co-founder Jim Bunch. Called “The Ultimate Game of Life”, Rippln are hoping affiliates will fork up $497 for the 90 day course.
Rippln’s initially announced “bigger than email” flagship product, the Communicator App, is still MIA with as yet no confirmed release date set.
How has this translated over for Rippln’s affiliates? In a recent blog post titled “Why I left Rippln”, former Rippln affiliate Wes Wyatt shared some figures:
I’m not sure what the fruit to money ratio actually is – but in my case with 3581 (A number most people in Rippln would NEVER see a tenth of) – I’d earned $32.95.
Those with much lower numbers (The majority of those in Rippln) went in the hole by $1.50 when they activated their account.
The top guy in Rippln saw a LOW 4-Figure Payout.
Shortly after Rippln’s first commission run Rippln affiliates with sizeable downlines began to sell their accounts, with at least one “corporate approved” for sale notice appearing on Rippln’s own Facebook page.
In response to all of this playing out over the past few weeks, Rippln recently uploaded a video in which CEO Brian Underwood apologises for Rippln’s failure to meet expectations.
[0:40] We have a lot of people who have huge expectations. They have a ton of anticipation for the Rippln platform, for the rewards program and for some of those people we have not met those expectations.
And I wanted to number one say, y’know, “we’re sorry”.
[15:12] There’s… a group of people that are, y’know, they’re pissed off. And you know what? I respect that.
They have every reason to be pissed off because what they expected, what they bought into they don’t feel like and it wasn’t delivered when we said it was gunna be delivered.
And you know what? That’s our fault.
Full credit to Underwood for issuing a public apology for Rippln’s shortcomings. At this point it would be easy to declare “I told you so” and leave it at that, however I believe there’s an as yet unanswered question of far greater importance:
“How did we get here?”
Presenting what will hopefully be a refreshingly humbler corporate culture over at Rippln going forward, Underwood (right) reveals
[16:07] I’ve learned a lot, I’ve learned a lot from the skepticism, or from the criticism which I’m taking as all constructive and I think our team is.
[16:55] We made a mistake of not doing more trainings and creating more clarity and more leadership.
[17:17] What we want to do is to encourage you again…(t0) give us a call, y’know communicate directly with us. The last thing that we want to do is create you as an enemy.
What we want to do is learn from you and your frustration.
This is in stark contrast to Rippln’s previous corporate culture, as evidenced by Jonathan Budd’s response to the initial BehindMLM Rippln review.
Budd’s foray into the discussion (April 23rd) began with
First off, Appreciate you Oz for trying to do a good thing & sharing what you know with the industry. I can respect that, and can respect you looking out for people.
But then just a few short days later (April 25th) deteriorated into
For all those criticizing our model, it’s become apparent to me you have very little education in how businesses are being run in the app space today. I recommend you go educate yourself so you can be a proper informant to the market place.
To all the opinions about whether or not you like how we are releasing rippln to the world, what our marketing is, etc… that is your opinion.
If you think you could do a better job getting 210,000+ users in 11 days, by all means… I encourage you to leave the world of commenting & go become an entrepreneur.
Budd (a Rippln co-founder) even went so far as to demand I supply him with an alternative business model for Rippln to “incorporate” into their business model:
Can you please share exactly how you would create a pricing model to meet all the massive costs of scaling our infrastructure, technology, & offices around the world so that the ripple can exist for our customers?
Please, by all means… provide us a detailed example of how you would run the financials of our company, price our products, and I’d be happy to look at it, and incorporate all your relevant feedback.
I’d love to see your suggestions for exactly how you would run the financial side as well since you seem to have so much experience.
Thank you for your time. Good bye.
After the above comment was made Budd was never heard from again, with discussion of Rippln’s business model continuing on without him.
This mind you was back when Rippln released their first compensation plan, which in my initial Rippln review panned as a simple recruitment driven scheme pegged onto an app distribution platform.
Shortly after that review went live Rippln began to publicly distance themselves from their original plan, eventually going on release a second model that gutted the commissions tied directly to recruitment altogether.
This unplanned and abrupt shift of commission strategy is important to note, as I believe it is the core reason for the state of Rippln today.
Despite all the “we haven’t launched yet” and “we’re in beta” talk that was used to smooth over the recruitment driven compensation plan backflip, it’s important to note that Rippln’s original business plan was not cobbled together overnight. It was the end-result of a plan hatched in early 2012 and carefully crafted until it was ready to be released into the wild.
Wes Wyatt explains,
I joined a company called iZigg in the Spring of 2012. I did so NOT because of the SMS Messaging they offered – but because of the promise that they were just about ready to launch something called AppCraze.
It was going to be a way to share apps and get paid for it. That’s all I had to hear! I LOVE apps and Social Media – and couldn’t believe I’d have the chance to profit off of sharing both!
Sound familiar?
I attended my first event in Columbus, Ohio – and it (AppCraze) wasn’t ready – but it was coming!!!
I attended my next event in Atlanta, Georgia – and it wasn’t ready – but it was coming!!!
Thankfully I missed the Cabo (Mexico) event where they talked about it – but it wasn’t ready. But it was coming!!!
And I also missed the TWO San Diego, California events where they talked about it – but it wasn’t ready. Guess what though? It was coming!!!
Are you getting the idea yet? And YES – much like a dog that takes off running again and again for the fake throw – I clearly can’t see when I’m being played!
It’s OK though – because the Las Vegas, Nevada event I attended was going to have it! Wanna venture a guess as to whether or not it was ready? NOPE! But it was coming!
Then a full two years, hundreds of conference calls / emails / texts, and 7 conventions / events later – Rippln (NOT AppCraze) launched in Dallas, Texas.
But NOT within iZigg as all of us were led to believe – but as a separate company with separate fees.
And that led to Rippln’s first recruitment driven compensation plan going public. In his apology video Underwood confirms the plan was changed for “legal reasons”, which we already knew as lawyers were called in to go over the plan after the BehindMLM Rippln review was published.
Quite obviously, “AppCraze” was the predecessor of the Rippln Communicator app, which was initially built to work within Rippln’s original recruitment-driven comp plan.
In changing the comp plan they inadvertently had to also change the platform they had so carefully spent over a year developing and getting ready for public release via a series of launch phases.
Publicly of course Rippln state that they weren’t prepared for the numbers of signups they received when they launched Rippln as the cause of the Communicator delay.
But does that hold up? They spent a year fleshing out the plan and launch, had everything ready to go and then had to abruptly change the comp plan mid-launch of Rippln.
The Communicator platform was the core of Rippln’s platform and commissions structure, it was supposed to be out first before anything else was attached to the Rippln name and it just co-incidentally got pushed back around the same time as Rippln’s initial compensation plan was dumped?
Not buying it.
The simple fact of the matter is that Rippln was never meant to be what it has turned out to be today. Brian Underwood and his fellow co-founders aren’t navigating unchartered territory by choice, they’re doing so because what they spent a year coming up with wasn’t run by a competent MLM attorney.
Toss in the brushing aside of initial criticism with “fuck you we know what we’re doing” type comments from Jonathan Budd, megatons of marketing hype and affiliates signing on in droves on the promise of getting paid based on how big their downlines were (as opposed to volume pushed through it, which was not a primary commission generator in the original plan), and that’s precisely why Rippln is where it’s at today.
And it’s also why the Communicator App is MIA. It took over a year for them to come up with Rippln v1.0, so it’s no surprise that scrapping how the Communicator integrated with the initial plan and integrating it into the new plan is taking so long.
Now Rippln are evidently throwing what they can at their affiliate-base, hoping that enough sticks until such a time as they’ve figured out what to do with the Communicator.
Clearly the current model of pushing third-party products and services through a traditional MLM backend isn’t really working out. With this comment, published to Rippln’s Facebook page just hours ago, probably spelling out what most of Rippln’s affiliates are currently going through:
Thank you because my first 2 payments were so low, I didn’t qualify for a check and yet I still pay my monthly cost. If that is not belief, I don’t know what is. I’m hanging in there.
How do I think this is going to turn out?
I think deep-down we’re simply looking at the law of diminishing returns in action.
The law of diminishing returns: used to refer to a point at which the level of profits or benefits gained is less than the amount of money or energy invested.
The whole “get paid on your social network’s activity” model is certainly not new in MLM, with countless failures having launched prior to Rippln coming along.
What was going to make Rippln work, at least initially, and drive momentum were the recruitment commissions they initially had offered. Underwood essentially admits this when he concedes that under the old model, Rippln’s top affiliate Michael Rutherford
[12:45] was anticipating six figures his first month. And the reality of it is if we would have launched the licensing model, he would have achieved that. Very quickly in June.
With that “licensing model” (Underwood’s fancy name for the initial recruitment-based comp plan) tossed out of the window, what really differentiates Rippln from the countless failed social network MLM startups before it?
Not much.
Underneath Rippln all you’ve got is a social network full of affiliates hoping that they’ll earn some money from purchases made by their downlines… who are also only in it in the hope that they’ll make money from purchases made by their downlines… who are only it in the hope that…
…well, you get the picture.
Rippln might have had to shift their entire focus away from what they initially had hoped to bring to the MLM industry… that however is not what their affiliates signed up for or were sold on.
Update 10th November 2024 – After being on YouTube for over a decade, the cited Rippln video featuring Brian Underwood was removed for “violating YouTube’s Terms of Service”.
No idea what happened there but as a result I’ve disabled the previously accessible video link.
If they spend some time and efforts analysing WHY, WHERE and WHEN things worked or failed, they may potentially create some new VALUE out of that. It will be REAL insight based on REAL experience rather than something from a book.
Professionals do that all the time, analysing and modifying strategies as they really work in real life rather than how they’re expected to work in theory. And they’re correcting the theories rather than blaming the real life for failures.
Yes, PROFESSIONALS do that. There is a big difference between a professional networker and an MLM’er.
Any business that cant be net profitable WITHOUT recruiting a sales team or opening up other points of distribution is NOT a viable business by ANY stretch. How can you “sell” a business that makes no money????
So many people fall into traps like this Ripplin deal over and over and over again because they dont have the first clue on what true business concepts are.
When you find the company which has distributorships for sale BECAUSE they are profitable, rather than selling distributorships to BECOME profitable. Then, and ONLY then, will you have a viable, profitable and long term business/income.
If you cant make a substantial profit, by yourself, without a single “recruit”, YOUR BUSINESS SYSTEM SUCKS. In fact its no business system at all,, and people wonder why the industry gets a bad rap ???????
Seriously? Would you EVER buy a Pizza shop that wasnt making a profit or had the potential to make one without opening up other shops?? How stupid would that be? Why is it accepted in MLM as a whole?
If a companies customer base and sales volume does not outnumber the distributor base and its consumption by at least 5 times, the products arent in demand, they dont sell and the result can only be a system thats dependant on recruiting. THIS IS NOT VIABLE. EVER!!!!!
If you think you have to be “first one in” to something to make it big, all you are doing is broadcasting the fact that the business model sucks for anyone who is NOT early in. This only serves to create an entire culture of people going from deal to deal trying to be “first one in”.
This whole mindset is completely absurd. Its amazing how people cant see these blatanly obvious flaws which are right in front of them. Not only do they not see them, they witlessly PROMOTE and glorify them.
Do your homework!! use some common sense. There are direct sales companies out there that do it right. There is no shortcut to the shortcut. If you dont want to do the work or sell products than a direct sales model is NOT for you..
These Ripplin deals and the thousands like them are NOT and never will be successful because they are not fundamentally sound.
They are schemes, plain and simple and there are MILLIONS of people that need to wake up to this FACT!!
Good observations and explanation.
I was thinking about a man called “Drillo” when I wrote that, an old Football Coach and manager. He’s EXTREME when it comes to analysing strategies in each and every game. But he typically also get results from doing it.
It isn’t about analysing, it’s about WHY we do it. If we do it to correct errors and improve something then it’s fine. If we do it to find excuses then it won’t make much sense.
“The plan could have worked and it would have worked. It was our lawyers’ fault. It was the unexpected results of the buzz. It was miscalculations of the capacity, etc.”. He is partly there by ADMITTING something haven’t worked.
Brian Underwood’s conclusions were vague, e.g. “It could have worked financially but not legally, so it COULD have worked”.
There’s a fundamental flaw in the business idea itself. You CAN build up a business around “being positive” ideas, but you can’t build up ANY business around it. In most businesses you will need to deliver MORE than your own leadership skills and “warm personality” (or whatever they believe they deliver).
Another flaw in the idea is “We wanted to deliver something new, something no one had done before”. They wanted to show the world how professional they are. The reality doesn’t work that way, professionals typically don’t have strong needs like that.
Small point, Appcraze and the Communicator app are not the same thing but since neither one exists yet it’s easy to confuse them for each other.
The communicator app was meant to be the core platform for the company. In addition to some functionality to make sure it was cool and all that, all of the “track your ripple” kind of things that are now done in your “back office” on the website would be done on a mobile device.
Appcraze on the other hand is Rippln’s impossible dream of entering into partnerships with all of the mega apps publishers in the market (Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Angry Birds, you get the idea)and having those companies cut Rippln in on the profit made from the people they introduced to those apps. It is the primary “vision” of their “get paid for the influence of your social graph” sales pitch.
Mr. Underwood was close to honest on this issue in his “I’m so sorry” call, he admitted they would need to be able to direct millions of transactions to make that deal work.
Seeing that their first and so far only foray into the App Store yielded maybe 20K downloads, they have a LoOoong way to go.
August 13th Rippln released they’re current comp plan:
docs.rippln.com/rippln_rewards_plan_full.pdf
That plan, as stated is grossly abusive of it’s low level paying affiliates but the plan as stated doesn’t seem to be illegal.
It clearly states that there are no “rewards” associated with the fees people pay to join and maintain their membership. But at the 6:50 mark in a YouTube video Micheal Rutherford explains the “player engagement bonus” system.
These are the bonuses you earn for recruiting paying members and which do “not include ANY of the other income you can earn as products flow through the Rippln Eco-System.”
Does that video contradict the official comp plan? Not if you let them play with their semantics. You see the official comp plan states that there are no rewards associated with the fees paid by a “Player” but when that player recruits his first five free “fans” they become a “Pro Player” and Rippln releases $13 into that “ripple” each month.
That doesn’t mean the person who recruited that “Pro Player” gets $13, didn’t I mention how abusive this comp plan is of it’s lower level members?
If the recruiter was just a lowly level one player they net $1.30 and the remaining $11.70 is split up among that person’s upline.
I was under the impression Communcator was a platform that would incorporate the AppCraze idea on a user front-end. Rather then have everyone rely on the website as things are now, it was/is supposed to be a platform that people can download, install and use – connecting them to the Rippln network.
Like an offsite backoffice as you mention, with AppCraze integrated into it.
As you state though, with neither released who knows what it will turn out to be. My point was that whatever Communicator does turn out to be was clearly inspired and had its roots way back when AppCraze was first mentioned.
Communicator was supposed to be a VOIP app that would allow you to make free calls directly to anyone in your ripple in addition to all the back-office features.
They claimed to have licensed an app and branded it back in May, but then the aforementioned scaling issues happened with the number of users and they had to scrap it.
This is simply bullshit. VOIP/SIP are done done done, easy to code, and the app has nothing to do with the ability of the VOIP PBX to handle users.
Besides, no sane company would host their own PBX if they were expecting a lot of users. They’d pay money to a service to handle it for them and integrate the service into the app (handle auth, etc.)
None of this would take very long to code or set up.
What bothers me is their whole “ultimate game of life” promotion.
Someone made a comment on their Facebook page about not being able to afford the nearly $500 price tag..Jonathan Budd replied essentially saying “You’re just making excuses, if you really want to make it work (or cared) you would find a way to get the money.”
Is anyone else really bothered by that statement, and mentality? If you can’t afford to pay Rippln’s fees, it’s because you really don’t want to be successful, and you’re just making excuses for your own failure. (Rippln certainly never makes excuses, right?)
I have a feeling, the people at Rippln know they are going down soon, so there are making one push to grab as much money as the can from people who are still loyal and believe in this nonsense. They are marketing the ultimate game of life as as way to increase your wealth, health, and happiness.
REALLY? So now Rippln is good for your health? Haha.
So many red flags with this company!
Part 2 of Brian Underwood’s apology is up. Underwood refers to Rippln as a “mission” and its affiliates and management as “soldiers” who are “willing to fight”.
What Rippln and its soldiers are fighting against however is unclear (themselves?).
Cheese, I don’t know if you’ve realized it or not but you are coming very close to saying the reasons Mr. Underwood gave for why the communicator app isn’t in the hot sweaty hands of Rippln players and fans as we speak, is complete and utter bull crap.
(I was almost able to type that with a straight face)
I’m wondering in Apple’s Review Guideline 2.25 might be what’s holding the Rippln Communicator app up:
iphonehacks.com/2013/04/appgratis-app-store-ban.html
Isn’t pumping not ready for prime time apps down the waiting throats of paying Rippln members everywhere pretty much all Rippln can do?
I mean until the platform is able to drive millions and millions of transaction per month so they can cut deals with the big boys they pretty much have to promote their more in house efforts (which to date suck rocks). And isn’t being able to “communicate” with your entire ripple another one of the communicator’s selling points? Clause 5.6 of Apples Guidlines:
Does anyone think a Ripple master or what ever the hell they call these people are going to mass message their “ripple” for any reason other than advertising, promotion or direct marketing?
The reason the communicator app has not been released is not because it doesn’t exist, it just doesn’t exist in a form that would ever get approved by the App Store.
Sidenote on the Communicator App, Underwood states in the second apology video that it’s slated for submission to Apple on October 15th. That’s a penciled in date though subject to change.
That’s only two weeks away and nobody knows anything about the app… other than what was initially scrapped. Hmm.
Spend $50 on the Top 2 or 3 Personal Development Books. You’ll have a couple TANGIBLE items – as opposed to a bunch of VIRTUAL Downloads via TUG (Don’t let the picture with all the cool books and software fool ‘ya!).
And don’t get too mad for the “leaders” telling people to sell TV’s (YEAH – they DID that!) or if you want it bad enough you’ll get it statements. Desperation makes people do crazy things!
Follow influencers like Gary Vaynerchuk that walk the talk and EXECUTE – not people Vision Casting! Pretending and faking it until you make it ISN’T made reality by speaking it into existence!
How in the world are there STILL people backing Rippln after hearing that BOLOGNA?!? Give me a break!
And for the love of God – DON’T waste your money on one of their events. Even when the “leadership” is telling you that 90% of life is showing up.
I took a leave from my senses and attended 4 of these ridiculous things! Live vicariously through MY ignorance! You’re going to drop more than you’ll ever get back in commissions – so why go in the hole right off the bat. You could Player Up in this waste of time “company” and do that WITHOUT the events!
So let’s review – DON’T JOIN, DON’T BUY TUG, and DON’T ATTEND THEIR EVENTS! And if you have – request a charge back, have someone slap you across the face, and have the slapper scream, “SNAP OUT OF IT!”
Create your own ripple by educating people you know in Rippln to get out and working to assure nobody else goes in! Most of them are GREAT people! They’re just scared, misinformed, bullied, and feel as if they have nowhere to turn outside of it.
I know a big bald guy that made it out of the compound before drinking any more of the juice – so I KNOW it can be done!
Thanks for including me in your post!
Have a DYNAMITE weekend!
Wes, thanks for stopping by and thanks in particular for your blog post on this topic. Most of the folks around here diagnose issues from the outside, we read the comp plans and watch how the affiliates interact with the updates and in general that’s a pretty good window to view these games from (and certainly cheaper than paying our way into them). But you were inside the walls before you spoke out about this.
I think the thing I was most interested in from your blog post was that the “AppCraze” idea Rippln is marketing predated the company and was in some sense used in iZigg conference calls.
iZigg was Brian Underwood’s last “once in a lifetime, it changes everything” opportunity before Rippln became his new “once in a lifetime, it changes everything” opportunity for those who didn’t know.
So Wes, any info you can add about “AppCraze” and it’s evolution from something being pitched to iZigg leaders to how it became the centerpiece of Rippln’s sales pitch would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Absolutely! It’s why I joined iZigg in the first place.
And don’t let ANY sidestepping tell you that it wasn’t part of iZigg. Other than the promise of moving into Canada with service – which is a whole other disaster in and of itself – it was THE most anticipated topic.
And as mentioned in the post you referenced – it was all LIP SERVICE! We’d go to an event with the promise of news – and would be fed an excuse along with a promise for the next event that it would be coming. I joined iZigg in Spring of 2012 and it’s STILL not here.
We were told it would be PART of iZigg! Then as you know – it was created under it’s own umbrella with new costs and new teams to build too!
Rippln would LOVE to dismiss my posts as Sour Grapes and/or lack of vision. I was ALL-IN for a LONG time before making myself believe it wasn’t going to go!
On a COMPLETELY different subject – it’s great hearing the “leadership” talk of integrity (Like they’ve EVER seen it displayed)! Something I haven’t seen anyone comment on and would LOVE to see screenshots and discussions of is the Book / Infomercial that their vision casting “leader” did. It was the most ridiculous thing you’ll ever see!
The usual suspects all paraded out with lumps in their throats and tears in their eyes speaking to how awesome he and his info was (Even though none of them have vision casted it into reality yet)!
I’d LOVE to not only see it again for comedic value – but to also discuss what sort of time it took away from business at hand.
Don’t let off of Rippln!
Keep educating people about just how insanely ridiculous it is!
Good people will avoid being hurt and separated from their hard earned cash!
Thanks and have a DYNAMITE night! 😉
That made some sense. I’m not familiar with Gary Vaynerchuk or anything like that, but I have seen where some other ideas fail. I have even analysed some commonly used ideas for where and why they fail, when I have been able to recognize them first (“if you can’t recognize them, you can’t analyse them either”).
I have read some American selfdev books more than 20 years ago, but I’m not updated on the topic. I’m probably able to identify “Vision Casting” from its basis in other ideas, e.g. as a combination of Napoleon Hill and some leadership ideas.
1. Napoleon Hill’s ideas will fail when they’re in conflict with realities, e.g. some areas can’t be VISIONED to change, it will require other factors than visions. Some areas will only be temporarily affected by visions (e.g. they will affect yourself more than the reality, how you SEE it yourself rather than how it really is).
2. Some leadership theories will fail because people react different to them, e.g. all people don’t have similar needs to be motivated by a leader (e.g. because they already have it, they don’t need that “extra motivation”, they want substance rather than motivation). When a leader has lost contact with the realities, followers will gradually start to realize it.
3. “Vision Casting” will fail because the reality won’t reflect the vision. You can’t use it on ANY vision, the vision must be backed up by realities. It will affect other people for a short period of time when the vision is fresh and unchallenged by the realities, but people will gradually realize the realities.
I tried to build a bridge between the visionary parts of “Think And Grow Rich” and the more vague “some leadership ideas”, for where they typically fail rather than for where people claim they work.
If I am able to identify things relatively correctly, I can also identify where and why they fail, and sometimes also point out the corrections they will need to work better. But that only works if there’s some realistic substance in the ideas, it doesn’t work if an idea is completely flawed.
Two observations:
1) Jim Bunch had been selling that “game of life” thing long before there was a Rippln.
2) Jim Bunch had been using that “I dare you to be great” type of bogus thinking since he started talking up Rippln as a co-founder. I think I even quoted his bogus logic in my own Rippln review.
Unfortunately, he sounds a lot like those people over at “Scamworld” (ref: Saltydroid.info ) who squeeze poor fools into paying up every cent for some bogus “Internet marketing secrets”.
From Brian Underwood’s video (one of them) …
“With great struggle comes great victory”.
That idea isn’t true in itself, in its very core. It CAN look like the truth from time to time, but that’s because the struggle was of the right type. It will not reflect the realities for all types of struggle.
Some types of struggle will only lead you deeper into trouble, some will only mislead you with some temporarily effects. Victory doesn’t come from that.
The Rippln team is trying to make the realities reflect their own theories, rather than the other way around (let the theories reflect the realities). They will need a complete makeover in some parts.
You can’t motivate people to feel a solution is great. You can motivate some people for a short period of time, but you can’t motivate them all. Motivational speeches will fail miserably on some people, not because they’re “negative” but because the reality isn’t reflected in the speech.
In short, you will need to have that “perfect solution” in place BEFORE you can start to motivate people about it. If it has some limitations, you will need to identify those too (it’s much better if you’re the one telling about them, than if some critics are identifying them).
1. The initial marketing idea worked “great”, i.e. a specific type of people responded to it. But from there it failed miserably. The team will need to analyse that part from the right viewpoint (not from “it worked!”, but from “It failed!”). Failing to do so will only lead deeper into failure.
2. The initial income opportunity was actually a pyramid scheme. That’s not “Blue Ocean”, it’s simply a copy of other people’s failed ideas. The most significant part of the income opportunity was simply a scam, with some vague business ideas connected to it.
3. The current income opportunity is more difficult to identify, but it surely isn’t very attractive. It’s recruitment driven, but you will need a HUGE downline to make any money on it. It’s actually more similar to a marketing channel than to an income opportunity.
The team will need to analyse the income opportunity part for its “functionality”. Currently it doesn’t work well, and it doesn’t seem to be backed up by any ideas either (realistic ideas that actually can work).
One point in the “functionality” part is that the marketing attracted income opportunity seekers, but the program will require the opposite type of users to work properly, “consumers” rather than income opportunity seekers.
4. A communication app can have a market, but it shouldn’t be the most central part of a program. People should be able to buy it and use it without having to become part of a network marketing opportunity (e.g. use it in other programs, or use it for other purposes than network marketing). I have identified the distribution idea to be flawed, it will limit the market to people wanting to become part of something.
I can continue to analyse it in a way like that, for the purpose of identifying it more clearly for WHERE it failed or worked, and WHY it did so. It will be from an overview perspective rather than from a detailed one.
What I can’t work with are ideas that are fundamentally flawed, e.g. when people believe they can VISUALIZE something into reality (without backing it up by realistic plans and actions), or when people believe they can MOTIVATE others to accept something (when it’s not reflected in realities). People simply can’t expect me to protect ideas like that.
Ideas are fundamentally flawed when they don’t reflect the reality. People visualizing and getting a promotion in their job will believe the visualization was the “key ingredient” to the promotion. But their bosses will look at it in a different way, and it were THEIR realities that mostly affected the promotions. I will identify both the realities, the imagined one and the real one.
I can’t work with ideas like “Rippln will be something no one have done before, it will reflect the leaders and their great ideas”. It’s almost impossible to make an idea like that work, it starts from a self centered perspective rather than from working business principles.
I can potentially produce spinoff ideas like “The idea can’t work in that way, but it can potentially work in …” (some specific other way), e.g. “The app can’t be used as an income opportunity in itself, but it can potentially be used as …” type of ideas.
Another example for that idea …
When people have used motivation techniques and visualized themselves as “great leaders” or something similar, it doesn’t always reflect the reality. People close to them and believing in similar ideas can accept it as “reality”, but the impression can be quite different if the “great leadership” is tested on another audience.
Motivational ideas work like that. They will not change the reality, but they will change how you see it.
* Visualizing yourself as a “great leader” will change how you see yourself, your “perceived reality” of what you are.
* That may potentially attract other people believing in similar ideas (either the leadership ideas or the other ideas reflected), and reflect the “perceived reality” back to you as “affirmations” to your own ideas. “Potentially” is because you will need SOME substance in your ideas, they will need SOME reality to work.
* A system like that will work as long as it is unchallenged by the realities. Many of the “great leaders” will prefer to surround themselves with like minded people = the ones reflecting them as “great leaders”.
* The system will eventually fail when the “great leaders” will try to test their “true leadership skills” on a different audience, and they find out that it doesn’t work outside their own community.
* A true “great leader” will then identify the reality from another perspective than the self proclaimed one.
* The self proclaimed one will identify the problem to be outside his own range, “out there somewhere” (negativity, criticism, etc. among the new audience). He will expect the reality to modify itself, e.g. “There’s something seriously wrong with the new audience, it will need to change!”.
* The experienced one will realize that his own strategy has failed, and make corrections to it. “There’s something seriously wrong with my method, I will need to make changes to it”.
We will often hear from people telling us about how the scams have changed lives and needs to be protected. But I seriously don’t believe in all the “good” they see in it. I can first start to accept those ideas when they have been able to remove their own “pink sunglasses visions”, when they have come closer to reality in how they SEE things themselves.
And that was a short description of WHERE and WHY some motivational ideas will fail. They are actually fundamentally flawed (believing you can change OTHER people’s “perceived reality” by motivating yourself). I have identified WHERE and WHY the flaws will be detected, and 2 different solutions to it.
2 Days later and still less than 1000 views on his first part of the apology video and less than 500 views on the second part of his apology video. I figured they would have at least learned to upload their videos to a place that does not show view count.
Their blog post view counts should be enough evidence of their fake numbers…
How could a blog post titled ” THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE YET, FROM RIPPLN!” not even get 1800 views – when you supposedly have a the time of the post…1.3 million members?
I love the fact they created a video on how to purchase a domain and use domain forwarding to get around the banning of their links on facebook. Surprised they didn’t send everyone thru a domain registrar affiliate link for the domain purchase.
A SHORT SUMMARY
Rippln in its current form will not turn out to be what it was intended to be, a “money making machine reflecting the greatness of its leaders and their great ideas, while changing the world at the same time”. 🙂
An idea like that is based on someone’s “wants and needs” rather than on realities and how a market work. It’s based on the “wants and needs” of the ones promoting it rather than the potential buyers’ “wants and needs”.
1. The people who signed up for it wanted to make money. They did NOT want to become “customers”. Rippln has attracted the wrong types of people for its current model, and they were attracted to something completely different than what it is now.
2. I have tried to identify a couple of examples for WHERE and WHY “perceived reality” will fail, if it is brought in conflict with the reality (e.g. OTHER people’s perceived reality).
3. I don’t have any solutions to the different problems right now. They do exist here as different types of ideas, spread around in different comments over a long period of time.
I have done what I identified in post #1 and #5, but not in any great detail. I have used business ideas rather than selfdev ideas.
You can’t build up a business around flawed ideas, e.g. your own wants and needs for what the business will do to you. That idea will only work in a very limited market. I have identified “perceived realities” to be a key problem here, in that too many solutions seems to be built up around ideas like that.
You can build up a business around realities and/or “perceived realities” in a market. That’s actually the normal way to do it. It’s not “Blue Ocean”, but the ideas usually work.
The big problem here is that my methods and ideas will be in conflict with the ideas they already have. I have used the idea of “problems will need to be solved with the opposite part of the brain than the one that initially created them”, i.e. I have identified and analysed the problem completely differently.
(post #6)
Michael Rutherford didn’t exactly add anything to the attraction value of Rippln. His stadium analogy identified most of Rippln’s members as “spectators” and “fans”, people who had come to the game to watch stars like himself in action, wearing his name on their backs rather than their own, “customers” rather than “players”.
That was actually one of the most unattractive descriptions I ever have heard. It will have appeal to a few wannabes, but not to a general audience. “You are the ones paying for the game, while I am the star receiving most of the rewards, the Champion of the game. You can come and watch me playing every Tuesday and Friday for $30 per month plus a one time $95 activation fee”.
That self proclaimed “Champion” can actually kill a business in the way he interprets and reflects his own perceived reality. He will surely kill his own income potential if he tries to recruit “spectators” and “fans”.
Rippln has multiple issues like that = self centered motivation rather than motivation that can work in a market. But it actually clarified something, I didn’t know how “great” he was before he personally told it. And now when I already KNOW how “great” he is, he won’t need to repeat it again.
I believe they had 6,000 members on August 1st = the number that had converted into paying “Players” in a test period. But they also limited the number for a period of time to avoid a full collapse if anything failed. The 6,000 were so called “Beta testers”.
An idea like that is rational from a business perspective. “It’s better to fail in small scale than in big scale” and “Test the response in a small market before launching into a big one”.
But then came the “Blitz 2” Facebook marketing attempt, and I don’t believe it worked very well. I will typically identify it from a business perspective, but I believe there might have been some personal motives behind the “Blitz 2” rather than some business ideas.
I see your idea / viewpoint. But the number of views isn’t really important. Those who HAVE been interested have probably watched it, the 1.3 million others have probably moved on to other opportunities. If they are interested, the video is also available (so they can’t come later and claim otherwise).
The videos make sense from a defense strategy viewpoint. “If things haven’t worked out like they were intended to work, admit it rather than trying to disguise it”. If people start to criticise the failure, you have already admitted it (the potential critics don’t bring anything NEW to the table, they’re only repeating your own conclusion to it).
I was very careful in not criticising him for posting the videos. I said “He’s almost there, ADMITTING something had gone wrong”. So I gave him credit for that, before posting my own viewpoints. And my viewpoints were mostly about something different, something I felt could be useful.
Most people probably lost interest long time ago. They used “impulse driven” marketing methods, and the target audience will not be motivated by any delays or struggle.
The 2 videos and a blog post is actually a good strategy (good DEFENSE strategy). We pointed out a few details in the videos, but other than that the response was “acceptable”. And we are a much tougher audience than most others, so it will probably be accepted by others too.
The videos should have been presented more from the viewpoint of the income opportunity seekers who signed up, rather than from the management’s viewpoint. But that isn’t very important, “things don’t need to be perfect”. The videos covered BOTH viewpoints, and that is good enough.
I won’t exactly advise them to do anything more than that. It IS possible to send an e-mail “Rippln Apologize” to people who feel they have been negatively affected, but it’s also possible to screw it up with methods like that. E-mail will allow for a different presentation type than video, e.g. you will need to make it shorter and more factual.
What I don’t like is the “With great struggle comes great victory”. That idea isn’t TRUE in itself. They shouldn’t use a strategy like that if they don’t have realistic plans for where the struggle will lead them. For an idea like that to be accepted, it must reflect the reality (not false hopes).
The description in post #19 is from my own experience. I have had dialogues with people who have used “affirmation techniques” to convince themselves about their own “leadership skills”, some of them with little or no real experience as leaders.
The idea doesn’t work well when it’s tested on a real audience (me). They have produced and are listening to “affirmation dialogues” a couple of times per day. They will typically get a shock when they realize that it only has affected themselves, not the world around them (me).
Motivation techniques often have negative side effects like that = people will often forget to adjust themselves to the reality they’re currently facing, and will use methods and “style” designed for a completely different reality.
My example didn’t have anything to do with Rippln, but I have identified some similar problems there. My example was from 2009, CarbonCopyPro (I had a dialogue with a local “great leader” in a forum or blog).
I don’t have screenshots – but DID find the name and I’m sure others can fill in the blanks.
The “product” was called, “Your Mobile Profits”. It was all sorts of ridiculous!
There is a Youtube video by Christian Fioravanti about “Introducing App Craze by Rippln” uploaded Aug 26,2013. So apparently they still want to incorporate the name into Rippln.
However, believability is low since this guy also invoked the apps that had nothing to do with Rippln, such as Candy Crush Saga.
While young Mr. Fioravanti looks like he may be destined to having his own page over at SaltyDroid, he didn’t invent the Candy Crush is “in the ripple” lie.
In early August Rippln held their “kick off” event in Dallas and while it’s hard to know exactly what the company said on the topic but a great many of people in attendance left the event believing that Rippln had already inked a deal with the makers of Candy Crush Saga and that in app purchases from the game would be payable in their “ripples.”
This is the core of the “AppCraze” delusion, the notion that Rippln can direct so many transactions to a major app company that that company will pay them for the traffic.
I don’t need to point out that Rippln isn’t nearly capable of directing a significant enough number of transactions to make those deals happen and I also don’t need to point out that lying about that fact seems to be Rippln’s best guess as to overcome that disparity.
(post #18)
I have looked into so called “Spinoff ideas” = secondary value that potentially can be created from the initial idea (seeing Rippln as “initial idea”).
“Where it worked / where it failed” based on real experience have much more value than “success theories”, but for a different type of people. It can be sold in one form or another to a specific audience, but that audience will be quite different from the audience wanting “success theories”.
Some types of audiences want IDEAS they can BELIEVE IN. Other types of audiences will want much more than that, they want much more insight than the first one. That’s clearly reflected on this website, we have many different types. And there’s markets for all the different types, but for different types of products and services and for how to deliver it.
A real business experience can be sold in another type of market than where it initially was tested. Rippln was primarily marketed to the coaching / opportunity market, with rules and methods acceptable for that market.
A new market will need different types of ideas. A spinoff idea can not be exactly the same type of coaching product, e.g. you can’t expect business people to join an opportunity. The audience will also be looking for other types of value than the initial one.
The type of analysis I have done in this thread is actually a type of “spinoff product” in itself = a different type of “product” designed for a different type of audience than the initial one. It will not lead to any immediate results, but over time some spinoffs will probably find an audience, and it will also generate experience.
(post #16)
WRONG TYPES OF IDEAS?
I’m not familiar with all the ideas behind the Rippln project, but I have tried to identify some of them in some of the posts.
My impression is that most ideas have been based primarily on “American Success Ideas” rather than on business ideas. I identified them as “American” because it’s typically there the ideas have been mass produced and commercialized.
Many of those ideas can be modified business ideas designed for another type of market. If the market want something specific, you will need to adjust the product to match what they want, e.g. if the market only find value in SOME of the material you should preferrably remove non valuable parts.
Robert Kiyosaki has a market, but he will completely miss other markets. “The Secret” has a market, but it will completely miss others. They both have a market among people willing to believe in the IDEAS they have to offer, and they can become popular in those parts of the market.
Rippln seems to have used “Robert Kiyosaki ideas” = ideas that have been modified so they can be sold to a specific audience and become popular (the ideas themselves, not the results they will generate). I haven’t read Robert Kiyosaki myself, but I have looked at the TYPE of audience recommending him. 🙂
I used Robert Kiyosaki as example for the TYPE of ideas rather than as an exact example. “They are accepted by a market, but they don’t work very well in business”.
BUSINESS IDEAS
Business ideas have a different core. They are primarily designed to work in specific situations, they are not designed to become popular, or to be sold as general ideas you can use to design and build up a business around. They’re “part of a whole”, supported by other ideas rather than being the most central idea.
“Vision Casting” could have worked if it had been supported by other business ideas (e.g. ideas about timing of different types of actions).
Business ideas are NOT built up around what they can do for the owners (e.g. reflecting the greatness of the owners or reflecting the greatness of the ideas themselves). That will only be a spinoff effect rather than the primary result, and it should never be a primary goal.
“Greatness” doesn’t work very well in business, other than in businesses where that can be defined to be a key factor (e.g. Gianni Versace had his own decadent style as a key factor). Most businesses are built up around other types of ideas than “greatness”.
For some businesses, “greatness” will be in conflict with their goals, e.g. Michael Rutherford’s self proclaimed “greatness” can effectively KILL the interest among a normal audience. Most people simply don’t want to become THAT “great”.
(start sarcasm)
That is because you don’t subscribe to the “fake it till you make it” philosophy.
(stop sarcasm)
Rippln “hints”(fakes?) involvement with big app companies, launch a stalking horse pretending there’s something better coming, then use the stats from the stalking horse (Photoguessaroo) they got for free from Surya Rising, and try to market it to some real app makers.
The Rippln Saga continues.
http://www.weswyatt.com/blog/mobile-marketing/why-i-left-rippln/comment-page-1/#comment-4618
Brian Underwood’s strategy is relatively rational. Troy Dooly is simply adding some “contrast” to that, making it easier for people to identify the rational parts. He often do that (makes other people look smarter and more rational).
Troy Dooly is also preparing a new type of defense for Rippln, if the situation goes from bad to worse.
He mentioned two times that he had brainstormed with Brian Underwood. They now have a perfect excuse for anything that can go wrong (e.g. “The perfect plans were influenced by some failed brainstorming attempts, and they resulted in uncorrectable errors. We were confused for months!”).
Wasn’t that Photo Guessaroo game for Android supposed to be released today?
Common Sense wrote
I agree. For me, this is kind of the problem with me trying to accept MLM as anything other than a cover for the dirty word “pyramid scheme”.
Ok, so since this is behindmlm.com instead of saltydroid.info let me say: I guess (maybe) there exists the possibility that there is such thing as a legitimate, profitable MLM (where more money comes from sales than from recruitment).
But you have to understand that when I acknowledge the possibility of that, I do it in the same way that I acknowledge that ghosts could exist. I don’t believe in those either.
(thinking on some stuff Oz wrote in the article)
Maybe a “good MLM attorney” can keep an MLM economically viable–but when he or she does so, is it by making sure the MLM truly and fairly plays by the rules?
Or is it by making sure the MLM is capable of giving every necessary appearance of playing by the rules while actually cheating–getting most of its revenue to those at the top of the MLM via fees and goofy recruitment incentives rather than by sale of products?
—
Furry cows moo and decompress.
You probably have SOME operating completely legitimate, and MANY operating in the “grey areas”.
“Completely legitimate” wasn’t about the philosophical version of it, where each and every part of a business will be focused on laws rather than profitability. “The grey area” is typically very vague and unspecific.
Problems will exist as long as there is more profitable to run a recruitment based MLM (e.g. affiliates on autoship) than it is to run an external customer based MLM. People will try to bend the rules to favorize their own profitability. That’s a part of the human nature.
A side effect of that problem is most new MLM businesses will be built up around a compensation plan rather than around market related ideas (the needs and wants in a market). Many of the products simply aren’t designed for retail sale in normal markets, they are completely dependant on having an income opportunity attached.
“Designed for retail sale” is about MORE than the needs and wants in the market itself. You will need a product line that is relatively easy to sell (to reduce personal sales costs per sale), where the customers easily can do most of the job themselves (where the sales person won’t need to get directly involved in each and every reorder).
In short, retail based MLM has been replaced by internet based ideas long time ago. The realities just haven’t caught up with it yet. The business model itself will be obsolete if recruitment based MLM will need to meet tougher legal standards. And then this website will probably turn into something new, e.g. BehindPonziPyramidHybrids.com
Now Budd is claiming they hired a “top-of-the line U.S. tech firm, really expensive” to work on the vaporous Rippln Communicator, but he won’t mention a name.
Anyone inside know the name?
Yeah I typed that with a straight face, barely. Nobody knows the name because at no point have they hired anyone who hasn’t been one of their associates in other ventures that I am aware of, and I’ve looked pretty hard.
Wait what? Brian Underwood said in the apology video that the Communicator app was due out on the 15th October.
That was of course a pencilled in date but cmon, 2 days out and they announce a new app developer who’s presumably going to start from scratch?
What a shambles.
Blah, blah, blah.
I don’t believe anything they say!
http://www.weswyatt.com/blog/mobile-marketing/rippln-back-to-the-basics/
I started to analyse some “Going Viral principles” in another thread, about a MLM social network called “Unittus” that flopped shortly after launch in January 2012. Like many other failed opportunities, it went into “stealth mode” shortly after it flopped.
“Stealth mode” is when you have a few loyal supporters who still believe in an idea that something eventually will become profitable, “the world just have to change first” or “the organizer is a ‘driven man’, and will eventually come up with the right ideas”. They’re True Believers, so they won’t even analyse where and why it flopped.
“Going Viral” is a topic of potential interest for SOME people. I have analysed it partly in that other thread, and I have even picked a fresh example (“The Fox”) to analyse for where and why ideas work and fail.
Link to the other thread:
One reason for why some “Going Viral” ideas start to fail is because people are blindly sharing them with each and everyone they know (and DON’T KNOW). People get EXCITED by an idea themselves, and want to share it with EVERYONE. That type of sharing will eventually harm the going viral idea, people will share it incorrectly (e.g. give wrong types of information).
Before an idea really can go viral, the idea has to be combined with some factual information for what it really is about, helping the ones sharing it to share it correctly. Rippln failed in that part, it focused on the main idea but without identifying it clearly in other parts.
People simply need to be informed about some “key details” as a part of the sharing. Rippln failed to identify that it was an MLM “pay to play” income opportunity, a factor that will make many people drop out immediately (it’s better to let them drop out than to have them complaining for months).
“WHAT DOS THE FOX SAY?”
“The Fox” is a music video that went viral in September 2013, primarily in the U.S. and Norway. It can be compared to “Gangnam Style” = all types of people won’t like it, and the ones who don’t like it should be allowed to drop out before watching it.
The video was initially uploaded as a promotional video for a local TV show in Norway, so it’s a type of “Comedy Act” rather than a type of “Music Video for music lovers” (music lovers seems to hate it). That’s 2 different types of expectations, a music lover expecting to see a music video will not feel very satisfied.
“The Fox” worked as it initially was shared. People knew what it was about and its main purpose as a promotional video, entertainment rather than something to share with music lovers, a Youtube video rather than a record to download.
That part of the information got lost somewhere in the going viral sharing. The result is reflected in Youtube comments for “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon – The Fox”. It first attracted a 95:5 ratio for “Like / Dislike” in its first 1 million views, but the ratio has gradually changed towards a 90:10 in the next 1 million views (people are simply not sharing it correctly).
“Going Viral” ideas need to contain some INITIAL INFORMATION about the idea that will need to follow them throughout each and every step of the way. They need to be clearly identified for the type of EXPECTATIONS they are designed to meet. Raising expectations about something you’re not able to deliver in reality is generally a bad idea.
RIPPLN
Rippln failed in a similar way = not shared correctly. But for Rippln, that was encouraged by the leaders themselves, “share it with EVERYONE you know or don’t know”.
The most unprofessional ones here were actually the leaders themselves. If you surround yourself with positive people, they will only reflect one part of the reality. Your idea will not be able to meet the reality out there in the real world.
A short conclusion can be deducted from my 2 previous posts:
“Correct types of expectations” will be a balance between different types, between HIGH and LOW expectations (the last one is needed too, e.g. to allow people to ignore invites without having to check them further).
The Rippln IDEA probably was attractive when it was shared inside an environment of “like minded people”. They could easily accept the idea of a “pay to play” recruitment based system where they were offered good positions right from the start.
But the idea didn’t survive its own meeting with the real world, and neither did some of the “like minded people” (e.g. Michael Rutherford simply looked distasteful in his marketing efforts). Flaws like that will need to be corrected BEFORE you start a full scale marketing campaign. You will simply need to mix in other types of viewpoints much earlier.
Rippln can act as an example for where and why some MLM ideas will fail, e.g. some “positive mindset” ideas often seem to fail. “The right mindset” isn’t about positivity, it’s about ANY type of “right mindset”. Positivity can be completely wrong type from time to time, and only lead to disasters.
I haven’t analysed those ideas, but I partly analysed the marketing methods in a smilar way as gamification = task oriented marketing = “do something and get rewarded” (e.g. sign an NDA and get access to the information you want).
That type of marketing method clearly sounded better when it was described as “gamification”, more attractive than it sounded in my “dog training method” description.
Whether the marketing method is about “gamification” or about “other ideas” isn’t important. I used that example to illustrate another type of point:
“Look at your ideas from other viewpoints than your own. They may look completely disgusting when people SEE them in a different way.”
“Like minded people” may potentially be able to SEE some flaws like that, but they will be very careful in not pointing it out to you (because then they will not be “like minded people” anymore). Most “like minded people” are simply not allowed to reflect other ideas or opposing viewpoints.
It has a similar problem. It worked better when it was shared as a parody than when people share it as a music video. Jimmy Fallon’s enthusiastic “the hottest viral video on Youtube right now!” is TOO enthusiastic and reflects something else than the true story.
Jimmy Fallon is actually raising the wrong types of expectations. He’s reflecting his OWN enthusiasm, but that particular video would have managed better with a more balanced style. You can’t FORCE people to like something, they will dislike it if you don’t meet their expectations.
I don’t know about you guys but I’m still chuckling about the whole “WE HIRED REALLY EXPENSIVE CONTRACTORS THE APP IS GOING TO BE WORLD CLASS REALLY… PLEASE BELIEVE ME? NO I’M NOT GOING TO MENTION NAMES.”
Christ, as Dooly has been ignoring me saying in another forum, if, at this point, they have a communicator app in development, they should show a video of it running. With that simple act they could alleviate a good bit of anxiety over the future of the company. Not doing so if they have the app means they are the worst strategists and custodians of their brand imaginable.
But no, even with everything happening, we haven’t seen any convincing evidence, and they sure haven’t mentioned the Dooly SEC sanction.
One wonders if they tried to snag some open source messenger type app, dress it up to look Rippln, only to be caught, thus forcing a full restart?
Just ANOTHER excuse and delay in an ever growing saga! RIDICULOUS! But it’s cool – because the iPhone users have the “awesome”, “addictive”, and “viral” PhotoGuessaroo to fall back! That should be enough to build a “Facebook Killer”. Vision Cast away sheep!!!
Protip to any future MLMs/Business owners/whatever: Don’t say “THIS IS GOING/WILL BE VIRAL.”
To quote Margaret Thatcher: “Power is like being a lady… if you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” Replace Power with going viral respectively.
Either they’re going to shut down after the LV event, or Underwood has gone crazy.
He’s promising Rippln 2.0 and Candy Crush in “App Share” (which you’re going to have to pay to join) on the 28th, and 4 other unnamed apps.
Now the Rippln Communicator is “Rippln Chat” and it’s supposed to start beta testing in 10 days.
I have spoken to developers at King, who have no idea what Rippln is, and neither did their managers. I don’t believe Rippln has a deal with King. (The company behind Candy Crush)
The promises are getting wilder and wilder.
They’re not just promises…it’s Vision Casting!
This “company” is ridiculous beyond words!
Clearly it’s gonna be a klone called Kandy Krunch and you all must have misheard him. 😉
If Candy Crush was Vision Casted into a deal – then they did so under EXTREMELY inflated numbers!
Regardless of people’s issues with things – one thing nobody can argue is the people taking part in Rippln. There may be 1.4 million email addresses – but there ARE NOT 1.4 engaged people (And there never were!)
The Facebook likes are at 85K – and I feel feel those numbers are cooked as well. They can’t get more than a couple hundred likes or comments on anything! Same with YouTube! Cooked numbers!
The engagement IS NOT there and the products suck.
Rippln is a rip off and nothing more.
I saw Drillo recently, when he was in England with the Ladies Norwegian Under 21 side – we had a good chat.
Nice guy.
not surprised Rippln has been kicked off Facebook, although I still see a few mentions.
Regardless of people’s issues with things – one thing nobody can argue is the people taking part in Rippln. There may be 1.4 million email addresses – but there ARE NOT 1.4 engaged people (And there never were!)
I was one of the first few thousands to join. I signed up a girl back in April, who grew a ripple of over 500 people in less than 15 days. When the tracking system opened up and I was able to see her downlines, turned up to be all fake emails. I myself, created more than 10 email accounts, just to unlock more invite codes at the time.
What the number of real people is, no one knows.
Or cares.
Seems that the guys who run Rippln have abandoned their FB page…
I’ve noticed that too. Not sure what’s going but it’s been almost 2 weeks, which is unusual for them.
I’m expecting an announcement that they’ve closed up shop (or the resumption of business activities) next week.
The only thing Rippln HQ has done in the past few weeks is charge people’s credit cards (in some cases fraudulently) and delete the conversation on the FB page last night mentioning the fraudulent charges as well as deleting some other random critical posts.
It’s going to be interesting to see whether they do a payout run for App Share (ha!) or if it’s just game over.
I don’t think this has been covered here but at the moment the only product/service that Rippln reps have to market (besides Rippln memberships) is the App Share program and even App Share has some less than legitimate aspects.
First off there is now a $199 fee that new “players” must pay in order to make money from sharing apps. And as mentioned above App Share is, in addition to memberships, the only thing Rippln affiliates have to market. So what used to be a $95 up front fee to join Rippln is now more like $294.
About the only functional difference in the fee change is where only $15 (changed from $13) of the old $95 up front fee was commissionable (as a “loyalty” reward) $100 of the $199 App Share Catalog fee is commissionable as a “coaching” reward.
So $115 of the $294 sign up fee are paid out through the two reward systems (likewise $15 of the $30/month as well). Needless to say these fees are only to participate in the income opportunity, are not retail transactions and should not be commissionable in any legitimate MLM comp plan.
On to the App Share concept it’s self. Rippln is claiming (pretending really) to be getting paid between $4 and $1.25 per free download they drive with 50% of that going to the affiliate, 10% going to their “ripple” and 40% staying with the company.
How are they doing this? They have a deal with a company called AppLift who offer many services, one of which is attracting CPI (Cost Per Install) downloads for app publishers. So in essence AppLift is (in part) doing what Rippln is pretending to do, paying people for downloads.
One real big problem here, no one pays nearly as much money as Rippln does for bulk downloads of free apps and no one would want to. Paying someone to download a free app only makes money if the average in app purchases per download exceed the cost per install. In app purchases are the behavior which drives revenue, not the download it’s self.
I didn’t previously appreciate how sophisticated app marketing has become, from very elaborate behavior tracking to simple things like split tests for what color buttons get clicked more often. Quite simply, when, where and how to spend money on advertising and marketing apps is growing into a science of it’s own.
We’re about two years past the point where paying people just to drive blind downloads is anywhere close to the most cost effective strategy.
So if Applift isn’t paying Rippln nearly as much per download as Rippln is claiming, where is the rest of the money coming from? Well if Rippln was not already a company which paid their affiliates with those affiliate’s own money this might be a question. But they are, so it isn’t.