The FTC, Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing and Herbalife
Whilst much of the news coverage surrounding Bill Ackman’s claims that Herbalife is a pyramid scheme has focused on stock market shenadigans, here at BehindMLM we’ve largely been focused on the issue of whether or not distributors can be classified as retail customers.
In one corner you have Herbalife and its supporters claiming you can, primarily on the premise that distributors purchase products for consumption in the exact same manner that retail customers do.
In the other corner are people like myself who believe that if you’re a distributor and participating in an MLM business opportunity, you’re obviously not a retail customer.
At least that’s the simplified core of the discussion that has ensued since I wrote my Herbalife review a few weeks ago.
Another tangent to the discussion is the familiar “well the regulators (FTC) haven’t done anything so obviously they don’t have a problem with Herbalife” argument. Here at BehindMLM we see this argument a lot, primarily used as an unofficial endorsement by the authorities of an MLM company’s business model I might find issues with.
Needless to say it’s a shallow argument that doesn’t carry any water. Moreso when you consider that the public aren’t privy to investigations carried out unless court action results (or the company in question voluntarily reveals they are being investigated, which for obvious reasons never happens).
On this particular topic of regulatory inaction, today news comes down the grapevine that the FTC have shutdown the MLM company Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing for operating what Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway described as being ‘one of the most prolific pyramid schemes operating in North America‘.
Unfortunately I never got around to reviewing Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing (FHTM) so my knowledge of the company is limited. Fortunately for the purpose of this analysis however, FHTM itself is largely relevant.
Putting aside the stock market and Herbalife share prices for the moment (which incidentally slumped 11% upon news of the FTC taking down FHTM), I thought today we’d take a look at specifically what the FTC took issue with in the FHTM case and see if any of it applies to Herbalife from a purely MLM perspective.
Taken straight from the FTC’s complaint against FHTM,
Since approximately 2001, FHTM has purported to operate a multilevel marketing company, selling various products and services using a network of “Independent Representatives” (“Reps”).
In order to become a Rep, consumers must pay FHTM an initial fee, previously as high as $299, but now $250. In return, FHTM claims to pay its Reps lucrative bonuses and commissions once they satisfy certain sales and recruiting requirements.
As noted in my Herbalife review, the company does not openly disclose the distributorship costs of joining on their website. Only able to thus rely on Herbalife distributor information, the various sites I visited pegged Herbalife distributor ship at anywhere between $60 to $200.
In return for paying this fee, Herbalife pays distributors bonuses and commissions for selling Herbalife’s products to retail customers and recruited distributors (non-retail).
In reality, since at least 2001, FHTM has been operating an illegal pyramid scheme.
FHTM’s complicated and convoluted compensation plan ensures that the vast majority of FHTM’s Reps make little or no money.
To the extent that Reps can make any income,this income results primarily from recruiting new consumers to become FHTM Reps and not from the sale of products or services.
Whether intentional or not (the FTC and vagueness seem to go hand in hand when it comes to MLM), the FTC have simply focused on recruitment (selling of memberships) and the “sale of products or services”.
Although I haven’t analysed the FHTM compensation plan, one can assume that affiliates were paid commissions upon the payment of membership fees made by new recruits.
Here FHTM technically differ, even though the premise is mechanically the same.
Whereas in FHTM you recruit a new member and earn a commission purely on payment of their membership fees, Herbalife differ in that distributors earn on their purchasing of the product (which also qualifies the distributor buying the product for commissions).
The problem here of course being that these new distributors then go out and recruit new distributors and earn on their purchases, who in turn must do the same if they wish to earn anything that resembles an income.
As noted by a Commercial Court in Belgium who found Herbalife guilty of being a pyramid scheme in 2011,
it is a lot more profitable for a (Herbalife) supervisor to sell to a distributor, rather than selling directly to a consumer.
Ackman even went so far as to peg the amount made via the recruitment of new Herbalife distributors and getting them to buy products at “10 times as much” as can be made selling Herbalife’s products to retail customers.
As such, despite not earning commissions via membership fees, both FHTM and Herbalife share the common denominator of required recruitment when it comes to success in the company.
FHTM is a literal requirement, whereas Herbalife is an effective one given that selling to actual retail customers largely appears to be virtually non-existent within the company.
There are several levels ofFHTM Reps. New entrants now pay $250 to join as Managers, and must pay $250 annually to remain with FHTM.
Previously; the initial fee was as high as $299. Unlike a legitimate multi-level marketing business, FHTM’s business model emphasizes recruiting new Reps over the sale of products and services.
Herbalife distributors have the potential to earn “10 times as much” getting recruited distributors to purchase products as opposed to selling the same products to genuine retail customers.
Need I say more?
Managers are strongly encouraged to immediately purchase either “starter packs” or “bundles,” which contain various FHTM health and beauty products, as well as other products and services offered by FHTM.
Herbalife don’t disclose specifics on their website but they too offer new recruits a a series of “starter packs” upon joining the company as a distributor (this I believe is why my research into how much it costs to join Herbalife revealed the $60-$200 range rather than a specific dollar amount).
FHTM assigns a “point” value to most of the products and services it offers.
In most cases, FHTM Reps must buy or sell products and services comprising a minimum required number of points to be eligible to obtain commissions and bonuses.
Depending on the Reps’ level in the pyramid and the type of commission or bonus, a Rep must earn five, ten, or fifteen points to be eligible for most commissions or bonuses.
Herbalife assign “volume points” to all their products. Under the “Senior Consultant Sliding Scale” (see BehindMLM’s Herbalife review), distributors can qualify themselves for higher commissions on the purchases made by their recruited downline by purchasing more product themselves.
The required point value can be a single order worth 400 points or multiple orders totalling 800 volume points or more.
Going by the FTC’s complaint, much of the FHTM compensation plan revolved around the recruitment of a specific number of new affiliates and the maintaining of a minimum monthly order to qualify for regular commissions.
Herbalife don’t set any specific recruitment amounts, instead tying their distributor promotion to volume points. Dubiously however Herbalife count distributor purchases and actual retail purchases the same when it comes to the generation of said points.
With the bulk of Herbalife’s revenue coming in from its distributors, once again we have an effective recruitment requirement if a Herbalife distributor wishes to make any significant money.
FHTM induces new recruits to join FHTM by representing that such recruits will be able to resell FHTM products and services to people not affiliated with FHTM for a profit and simultaneously earn large commissions.
FHTM claims that its representatives will be able to easily sell its products and services to consumers not affiliated with FHTM.
In fact, few of FHTM’s products and services are ever sold to anyone other than the Reps themselves.
Furthermore, Reps receive minimal financial rewards from FHTM for selling the products and services to outside consumers.
Although not explicitly clarified as a percentage, here we have what is undoubtedly a retail requirement.
The FTC believe that not enough FHTM products are sold to retail customers (“non-reps”).
In the case of Herbalife this would be the sale of Herbalife products to non-distributors (true retail).
In addressing Ackman’s claims against the company, Herbalife revealed that just 31% of the products sold by the company (through its distributors) are shipped to retail customers.
That means that 69% of the product sales in Herbalife are “sold to the reps (distributors) themselves”.
As for ‘minimal financial rewards for selling the products and services to outside consumers‘ again, the Herbalife compensation plan is clearly titled incentive wise towards the sale of products to recruited distributors as opposed to retail customers (as further evidenced by the quoted sales figured above).
FHTM’s recruitment bonus rewards a Rep for his or her recruitment efforts, as well as the recruitment efforts of his or her downline recruits.
FHTM provides much larger rewards for recruiting new Reps than for sales of products or services, thereby. encouraging Reps to recruit new members rather than to sell of products or services to ultimate users.
As we’ve previously covered Herbalife don’t directly compensate distributors on the recruitment of new distributors, however if you look at the compensation plan, there’s clearly an incentive to sell to recruited distributors as opposed to retail customers.
Accepting this fact, then so too Herbalife “provide much larger rewards for recruiting then to sell products or services to ultimate users”.
“Ultimate users” is a bit vague (Herbalife will claim distributors are ultimate users), however given the points above referring to the sale of products to “non-reps”, one can assume these are the “users” the FTC are talking about.
More than 85% of the compensation paid to FHTM Reps is tied directly to recruiting new members.
This is a bit of an interesting one. If we take that 31% of the products sold in Herbalife are shipped to retail customers, that means that 69% of the revenue made via the sale of products (by the company) is from distributor purchases.
Given that Herbalife distributors earn commissions on these distributor purchases, 69% of the product sale compensation within Herbalife is then also tied to recruitment (the distributors purchasing product month after month are recruited).
69% isn’t quite 85% but it’s still well short of the common sense 51% of more majority figure I use as a general rule of thumb in evaluating MLM business opportunities (51% of your revenue must be from retail customers).
FHTM pays many types of recruitment bonuses. These bonuses are earned from enlisting new recruits.
Again, if we take the revenue makeup of Herbalife and accept that the vast majority of revenue is coming from distributors, then so too are Herbalife effectively paying recruitment bonuses to its distributors.
Not in the literal sense but in the sense that, without recruitment these bonuses would be significantly lower.
In contrast to the claims of profitability, the compensation plan used by FRIM is designed so that, at any particular time, the majority of Reps will spend more money to participate in FRIM than they earn through their involvement with the company, and the majority of Reps will not make the substantial incomes represented.
Herbalife acknowledge that most distributors fail to turn a profit, however the company claims that these are infact retail customers who signed up as distributors for a wholesale discount, as opposed to failed distributors.
Once again I remind readers that if you’re a distributor with access to a compensation plan, you simply aren’t a retail customer.
The MLM industry’s solution to this was the creation of the “preferred customer”. Preferred customers cannot earn commissions, however by placing a regular order (which Herbalife’s distributors do), they qualify for a wholesale discount.
Herbalife have been around for 33 years and for whatever reason, despite claiming that the majority of their distributors are just in it for discounted products, have never bothered to set up a preferred customer class within their compensation plan.
You can claim this is just a co-incidence but in all the time I’ve spent covering the MLM industry one thing I quickly learnt is that there are no co-incidences.
At worst Herbalife are deliberately choosing to operate in a grey area by claiming their failed distributors (who spend more than they make) are infact retail customers.
They know that should they dare to introduce a preferred customer class that they can no longer misleadingly make the claim that their distributors are retail customers. Of course they’ll also no longer be able to simply write off concern about the percentage of “income negative” distributors in the company as simply product loving customers either.
At best after thirty three years of business and a series of very public lawsuits against MLM companies by the authorities specifically targeted a lack of retail (“non-rep”) sales, Herbalife have been completely negligent and ultimately failed their distributor base by not implementing a preferred customer class at some point.
The rest of the FTC complaint then goes into claims about “income misrepresentations” made by FHTM affiliates, which isn’t really what I wish to discuss here (I’m not saying Herbalife distributors are or aren’t doing this, just that it’s not really conductive to analysis of the Herbalife business model).
At the end of the day as you can see much of the FTC’s complaint against FHTM can be applied to Herbalife’s business model and compensation plan. It’s not quite an exact fit but given the distributor heavy makeup of Herbalife, only requires slight rewording to do so.
Following my analysis of Herbalife’s business model and compensation plan and the FTC’s complaint against FHTM, I still maintain that the easiest way to solve the question of whether or not Herbalife is a pyramid scheme would be the introduction of a preferred customer class.
There’s simply too many points in the FTC’s complaint against FHTM that can be easily applied to Herbalife to ignore and not only that, the creation of a preferred customer class would ultimately settle the required differentiation of distributor revenue vs. retail revenue.
Either Herbalife and its distributors are making more money from the recruitment of new distributors than they are from product sales to genuine retail customers, or they aren’t.
The ball is in your court Herbalife, why not act now before it’s too late?
Footnote: You can read the entire FTC complaint against FHTM here.
Oz, typo. A couple places you got “FRTM” instead of “FHTM”. 🙂
I guess the AG caught on that the fees are what actually kept the company afloat. Most everyone knows by now that the earnings from the services provided are pretty dismal.
People need a very large group of affiliates/distributors to make any decent money from the sale of services alone.
Bring on the next one.
I was referring to the FHTM case.
I have checked the BurnLounge case, found on FTC’s website.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/03/burnlounge.shtm
FINAL COURT ORDER (link disabled):
ftc.gov/os/caselist/0623201/120314burnloungeorder.pdf
Point #19 in the order has created some frustration among MLM attorneys in general.
Using a definition like that is very uncommon. It looks like the court has completely ignored internal consumption as sales to end users, and thus setting a new “zero tolerance” standard for external and internal sales. But “For the purpose of this definition” means the definition is specially applied to a specific case, it’s not a new standard.
The logic behind that new definition is probably hidden within a previous order. BurnLounge wasn’t “shut down”, the court only “halted” the potentially illegal parts of its operations during the trial, while the legit parts of the business was allowed to continue.
It was allowed to sell music to end users, but was not allowed to recruit more affiliates. The court also froze accounts during the trial, and the company was put under administration (by FTC or a Receiver).
CIVIL VS CRIMINAL CASE
“FTC vs BurnLounge” was a civil case, with different “Burden of proof” than a criminal case would have had, e.g. poor record keeping routines counted in the Defendants disfavour. The strategy that originally was meant to make it difficult for a prosecutor to prove anything illegal had the opposite effect, making it difficult for BurnLounge to prove the legality of the business.
Civil cases can’t sentence the parties to pay “fines”, “penalties”, “forfeiture” or other types of “punishment”. They have a method called “Equitable monetary relief”, i.e. order the party to return or deposit any illgotten gains. The organizers had to return close to $17 million as equitable monetary relief.
The logic used was probably “A promotional pyramid does NOT have to follow the exact borders of a single company structure. It can be PART of a company structure, or it can extend beyond the borders of a single company”. The court could simply ignore the legit parts of the business (the retail sale of music), and focus solely on halting the illegal parts (the recruitment scheme).
NOTE:
This has been interpreted “As far as I can see”, trying to identify the logics used by the court. I may have misinterpreted something there, and I haven’t checked any of the previous orders in that case. I might have to correct something in my interpretation here.
@Kasey
Thanks for the pickup Kasey, the instances of FRTM only appear in the quotes taken from the FTC’s complaint. I went back and checked and they use FHTM so I’m not sure why it translated into FRTM with a copy and paste.
PDF weirdness!
@M_NorwayWell if they’re using the same definition in FHTM, we can safely assume it’s game over if they go over Herbalife today and decide to launch similar civil action.
Unless of course the FTC believes Herbalife is “too big to fail”…
Technically the Burnlounge decision is not a new definition, nor was the Webster vs. Omnitrition case. Both of them simply “clarified” the FTC vs. Koscot case.
There’s another factor to consider… how exactly was the Herbalife “retailing” BEFORE 2003, when “nutrition club” was invented by a Herbalife distributor in Mexico? You *could* argue that nutrition club is retail, except that all the members are distributors for the discount.
The flipside of the question… So who are these “31%” customers that gets stuff shipped directly from Herbalife? The “implication” is they do NOT enjoy the 25% discount, so who gets the retail profit? And why are they enjoying paying that extra 25%?
I believe retail profit wise the company just pockets the difference.
from bloomberg:
it appears that the charging of fees [cash] for joining the scheme is the primary reason for the scheme to be ruled a pyramid.
also FHTM is not a DSA member, inspite of being over 10 years old .so maybe they were not following the code of ethics designed by DSA and consequently not made a member ?
the DSA is very clear that :
i suspect burnlounge was also never on the DSA list .
this is the DSA’s response to ackmans allegations about internal consumption .
(Ozedit: Please don’t directly link to files on other servers)
In short, what the FTC watches for—and what the DSA Code of Ethics is designed to protect against—are compensation systems that are funded primarily or exclusively by payments made for the right to recruit other participants.
Compensation must primarily be based on the sale of products and services to the ultimate consumer—whether or not that consumer is also a seller of the products.
We believe the law, and resultant anti-pyramid enforcement, to be quite clear and settled on this issue compensation received by salespeople for products they themselves buy and use, and those bought and used by other salespeople within their organization, is a legitimate, legal and ethical practice and not evidence of any impropriety
the courts and the FTC seem very unstable to me . this is what happens ,norway , when laws have such gray areas in them .just about anybody can make their own interpretation .
so lets see what we have from the DSA’s point of view :
1] the FTC’s decision in koscot : the basic test was ,that a pyramid, rewards recruiting alone , “unrelated to the sale of product to ultimate users” through headhunting fees and inventory loading. note the use of the term ‘ultimate users’ [by DSA] as opposed to retail customers
2]the amway case decision did not ‘question the legitimacy of compensation to participants in a direct selling multilevel company based upon their own or other participant’s actual use and consumption of the company’s products’.
the amway case was more about the checks and balances employed by amway which differentiate it from a pyramid scheme like the 70% rule , 10 customer rule and buyback policies
3]in omnutrition the court called into question the legitimacy of compensation based on internal consumption . however the order of the court is called ‘dicta ‘which means not binding on subsequent cases of a similar nature.
also the case was sent further to trial ‘on merits’ and so the observations in this order are not prescribed law but interlocutory in nature meaning interim , temporary and not final .
4]to undo the potential damage of omnutrition , the DSA engaged in dialogue with the powers that be, and they came to a conclusion that compensation on self consumption is ethical and legal
5]pursuant to this ‘dialogue’ the FTC wrote to DSA saying that they do not consider self consumption to be an indicator of pyramid schemes
6]pursuant to this ‘dialogue’ we have different states signing statutes giving reasonable amounts of self consumption the same status as retail
7] out of the blue, we have the extreme reaction in point no 19 of burnlounge order showing zero acceptance of internal consumption . however as norway notes , this is specific to this case and not prescribed law in general
8] in the middle of all this, we have an FHTM which mixed cash and products and got itself into trouble .
burnlounge [almost 0 retail] and and FHTM [cash join up fee] were CLEARLY on the wrong side of ‘grey’ but herbalife might be a much tougher nut to crack .
bet the DSA is rallying all it’s lobby power at this minute !
@anjali
If you read the FTC complaint you’d see there are multiple reasons. One of which was too much internal consumption.
Nah it’s pretty simple. Once again we have a company not generating 51% or more of their revenue via sales of a product to retail customers.
Recruitment and membership fees are just a side-effect of not doing this.
Ultimate user has previously been defined by the FTC as “non-participants”.
If you’re not going to read what’s already been written I’m going to start hitting delete. A little bit too much “I didn’t read anythere here’s what I read somewhere else and I’m going to type a wall of text and I don’t care if it’s already been discussed” from you.
From post #4:
Nehra & Waak’s reaction:
http://www.mlmatty.com/2012/06/burnlounge-order-not-being-ignored-dsa-lawyers-considering-responses/
It looks like DSA, MLM attorneys and MLM advocstes got a shock from the BurnLounge case, especially from points #16-19 in the Final Order (or maybe from all the definitions used in that order).
My interpretation is quite different from their’s. I’m not an attorney, so I’m trying to understand the logics used rather than focusing on details.
LIMITING STATEMENTS
From my perspective, statements like “For the purpose of this Final Order” and “For the purpose of this definition” are meant to limit something, similar to “For this case only”.
First the whole section “Definitions” is limited by the statement “For the purpose of this Final Order”, and then point #19 in that section is limited by the statement “For the purpose of this definition”.
I believe the MLM attorneys have focused on other details, and interpreted the definitions to be a “new standard” or something. I believe the real problem can be found within their own interpretations, not within the order itself.
A NIGHTMARE FOR RECRUITMENT BASED MLM
Other than that, the BurnLounge case is a “nightmare” for recruitment based MLM where the main focus is on recruitment. It showed that a court can effectively halt a recruitment scheme by using civil laws, completely restraining the participants from selling the income opportunity rather than selling products to end users.
It showed that poor record keeping is not a good strategy, and neither is vague lines between distributors and customers. Vague lines makes it difficult to prove the legality of a business as a whole, it will not make it difficult to prove the illegal parts.
HERBALIFE’S STRATEGY
Herbalife’s strategy “We don’t have detailed insight into sales to external customers” is a rather poor defense strategy. It failed completely in Belgium. It’s a misinterpretation of the “Burden of Proof” principle, using the logic “If they can’t prove we’re guilty, then …”. That logic doesn’t work well in civil cases.
Of course self consumption is completeley ethical and legal. Compensation derived from self consumption can be completely ethical and legal, too. But that doesn’t mean ALL compensation derived from self consumption will be ethical and legal, does it?
DSA is a lobbyist organisation, fighting for the interests of the few on the expense of the many. We’ll have to see it in that context. DSA is fighting for the interests of recruitment based MLM, for the owners and organisers rather than for the participants.
DSA is trying to make recruitment based MLM become more profitable for the owners, and less profitable for the majority of participants. I don’t think they deserve any support from me on that issue.
Recruitment based MLM is not a sustainable business model when recruitment becomes the most central part of a business. Companies will need external customers to be able to pay a sales force. Internal consumption can’t REPLACE external customers, but it can function as an ADDITION to external customers.
To pay a sales force, a company will need a stream of money coming in from the “outside” of its business, from non-participants. Money coming from the participants themselves can’t replace that as a primary stream of money.
DSA is eager to make internal consumption become EQUAL to external customers “in the eyes of the law”, reducing the need for a company to have external customers, making it become legit to distribute the participants own money in a “contribution and reward system” when the system has products or services attached to it.
I believe that idea is “one sided”, “short sighted” and “narrow minded”, more destructive in its nature than constructive. It fits your personality better than mine. 🙂
In point #6 you’re talking about “reasonable amounts of self consumption”. No one has actually disagreed in that. We have disagreed in that ALL self consumption automatically will fit into “reasonable amounts”.
“Reasonable amounts” can be about the money people have to pay, about fair value of products, or about the participant to customer ratio (e.g. BurnLounge’s 97:3 ratio wasn’t exactly a “reasonable amount”, having 1 external customer per 32 participants).
32 customers per distributor would have been a “fair amount”, but that doesn’t mean the opposite ratio is fair.
POINT #7
In point #7, you’re talking about “the extreme reaction”? That court order is reflecting several “issues” with BurnLounge and its management, e.g. poor record keeping and misleading marketing (among other things). BurnLounge was selling the income opportunity itself rather than the services, using a misleading marketing strategy.
Pyramid scheme is a plan or a system where the participants will have to pay “considerations” for the right to participate. It’s NOT about internal consumption vs external sales, other than INDIRECTLY.
“Consideration” is about paying for the opportunity itself, either directly or indirectly (e.g. through purchase of over priced products).
The BurnLounge case wasn’t about whether or not BurnLounge itself (as a whole) was a promotional pyramid. It was about whether or not BurnLounge had ORGANISED and was OPERATING a promotional pyramid INSIDE the framework of its own business model.
EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSUMERS
The court separated clearly between external customers and the internal ultimate users in point #19, for the purpose of its own definitions and for the purpose of the final order. External customers do NOT pay any “considerations”, but the internal consumers in BurnLounge DID pay considerations.
There’s clearly a legal difference between internal and external consumers here, and the court identified that difference in point #19. The legal difference is related to the considerations from participants, not to sales or consumption.
There IS a legal difference here. Participants paying considerations can NOT replace external customers. Those two groups of “ultimate users” will not be EQUAL to each other
Most “normal” MLM companies will NOT have any problems with the definitions in the BurnLounge case. That definition is about considerations from participants, it will not affect other companies in other ways.
look at it this way. IF the product price is at par or lower than the market price for comparable products then what is the problem with 100% self consumption?
it just means the SAVINGS on product distribution and selling is being shared with the consumers themselves. so your hypothesis is not correct for ALL MLM’s. It works only when prices are artificially jacked up
NO. you don’t get to talk down to me while simultaneously perching your ass on some self constructed pedestal.
i put forward the ‘other’ side here , because i don’t like the tone and tenor of soapbox’s articles. it’s all rah rah rah lets pull this house down . that’s what delinquents do.a good critic takes all viewpoints into consideration and does not shy away from withdrawing from his own arguments when they don’t go anywhere.
i think MLM or direct marketing is a GREAT idea and it just needs some deft lawmaking to become squeaky clean.
if things are in a mess and nobody knows what’s legit or what can safely pass under the radar then ONE TIGHT SLAP to the governments and regulators who are sleeping on their jobs.
Effective recruitment commissions because that self-consumption will qualify affiliates for commissions paid down on multiple levels.
Of course you don’t. You and your family were heavily involved in the running of the biggest Ponzi scheme India has ever seen.
Now that that’s done and dusted you’ll take any shot at pushing your pro-scam agenda on here. As pointed out multiple times, even to the point of absurdity.
these commissions cannot be described as ‘pay to play ‘ money since the product is discounted . the main attraction for people joining such a scheme would be to enjoy discounts .go read up what the FTC says about such a set up .
let me correct you here . my family ‘supports’ speakasia as opposed to ‘runs’ it . see , since ackman rang the bell, you’re off and running with ‘herbalife is a scam ‘.
however loeb and icahn and many others, including MANY [more than 192] distributors of herbalife are supporting it . i dont see you calling them scamsters soapbox. that would be downright absurd, wouldn’t it ?
Commissions are money paid to distributors, ‘pay to play’ is money distributors pay to the company.
And I never even mentioned ‘pay to play’, I said recruitment commissions.
don’t run an MLM company and are thus entirely irrelevant. I’ve previously stated I don’t really give a crap what goes on in Wall Street, my interest lies purely in the MLM side of things.
What’s your definitions for a “consumer”? You will need clear definitions before you can find any bright lines. Try to identify some “typical consumer behaviours” and compare them to more untypical ones?
A consumer should normally be a person with the desire to buy a product or service for personal use. Personal use can of course include family members. There IS a relatively clear definition here.
A consumer CAN be a person buying goods in large quantities, to get a reduced price.
A consumer CAN be a person making deals about regular purchases (e.g. daily, weekly, monthly or yearly purchases), to get lower prices or other consumer benefits.
A consumer CAN be eager to recommend shopping solutions to family and friends, or even to strangers.
None of those behaviours will be in conflict with with any “typical consumer behaviour”. They will fit well within the definitions for a “consumer” in enough cases to make some sense.
Bright lines should be able to separate between “normal consumer behaviour” and “other types of behaviour”.
Recruiting family, friends or strangers into an income opportunity is NOT a “normal consumer behaviour”. The desire here is about earning money, it’s not about buying products. It fits within “other types of behaviour” definitions rather than “typical consumer behaviour”.
Even if it makes perfectly sense that a person can be eager to earn an income, the behaviour doesn’t fit within the right group.
Please come up with some clear definitions that can be used before talking about clear lines? Clear lines are based upon clear definitions, not the other way around.
Not quite. Dicta is an observation that does not have DIRECT consequences on the specific case the judge is trying. There are four kinds of dicta, this is “obiter dictum”
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Obiter+dictum
While not *directly binding*, it is STRONGLY PERSUASIVE. Children of illegal born immigrants born in the US are still considered US citizens. That’s a dicta ruling, and never challenged.
They may *say* not legally binding, but it generally has the *same effect*.
If you recruited a bunch of self-consumers, why give them the title of distributor?
I personally have no problem with self-consumption, if it’s real demand and consumption. I *do* have a problem when it qualifies someone (or that person’s upline) for income.
Let’s put it this way:
If A sold product to B as pure retail, in Herbalife’s case, A would have pocketed at least 25% profit, assuming SRP.
If B joined as downline with A as sponsor, B pays less (25% less). But A gets downline commissions (when reached a certain level) INSTEAD of retail profit. However, if someone joins under B (C?) A gets a portion of his sales as commission.
At what point does it become MORE profitable to have downlines vs. retail customers?
In a legal MLM business, that point should be NEVER… Yet in various stories it’s widely reported that people who don’t recruit dozens (customer or distributor) makes no money. Only people who managed to recruit hundreds of downlines are making a decent living.
So is a system that is fundamentally stacked AGAINST retail sales actually MLM?
To clean up a mess, you will first have to identify where the mess originates from, stopping the source of the mess rather than stopping it where it becomes visible.
If the mess is about a lack of bright lines in regulatory laws, you’ll have to clean up the market they should regulate rather than trying to clean up the laws.
The lack of bright lines in laws will ONLY become a problem when a business has a lack of bright lines in its own practices. The real problem here is the lack of self regulation.
In MLM companies where they have a clear distinction between customers and participants the laws won’t be any problem. It should be relatively easy to separate between different types of internal purchases for whether they fall within “consumer behaviour” or “participant behaviour”.
The companies having problems are the ones having a mess themselves, e.g. they’re unable to separate customers from participants. They will first have to clean up their own mess.
I have checked DSA’s definition for pyramid scheme (point #6 in their Code of Ethics):
DSA has a lack of clear definitions itself. Basically it’s a mess, referring to some sources while avoiding others.
* It refers to “Amway 1979”, but not to newer cases.
* It refers to existing statutory laws in SOME states, but not to case laws.
* It does NOT identify any “basic legal principles”, e.g. which basic rules a law will have to obey to be valid and enforceable.
* It does NOT identify any main purposes of the laws, it’s focusing on the details rather than focusing on the main picture as a whole.
* It does NOT identify any definitions, e.g. whether there’s a legal difference between customers and participants, whether there’s a legal difference between selling income opportunities and selling products, and so on.
* It allows its members to amend the rules by VOTING, rather than by identifying the most correct rules. So popular rules will receive more votes than correct ones. They have no rules in place to prevent that type of amendments. Currently it reflects what its members finds “acceptable”.
* DSA’s rules are rather vague, focusing on rules for WHAT to do rather than WHY the rules are in place. Definitions are vague and general rather than clear and specific.
DSA will need to clean up its own mess before trying to clean up any laws. The organisation has most of its focus on the bottom level in the hierarchy of laws, rather than having an overview.
The organisation is indirectly trying to legalize promotional pyramid schemes, by applying rules where participants and external customers are considered EQUAL to each other, but without identifying the important legal differences between them.
You can’t expect me to support an organisation like that. It will be like supporting the cause of the trouble rather than the solution.
yes and the ‘pay to play’ money is disguised as an over priced product and the commissions to distributors are also paid from and on the over priced product. But if the product is underpriced this whole argument vanishes into thin air .
read babener’s article about buying club MLM and from what i have read here in all discussions, i find only this kind of system beyond reproach. my heart don’t bleed for the monavie’s of the world and i’m giving herbalife benefit of doubt because i hate to hang people without fair trial .
http://www.mlmlegal.com/join.html
my definition would be – a customer is a person who purchases a product
i don’t think anybody should define a set of behaviors for a customer . he may use the product , or throw the product in the arabian sea ,or sell it for profit/loss , or join a chain of customers who benefit from each others purchases .it’s his bloody wish .
well norway, in their defence i would say that when the FTC hasn’t a clue then why should DSA have perfect definitions.
and naturally every organisation will make rules that suit their industry. the DSA represents a business class, they are not a wing of the red cross society.
it’s up to the FTC to call their bluff but the kohm/DSA letter tells us the FTC is quite in agreement with the DSA.
Buying clubs != MLM, stop trying to meld the two. There is no such thing as a “buying club MLM”.
There’s nothing wrong with buying clubs, introduce an MLM compensation plan though and you have problems (recruitment commissions and no retail sales).
If a company does not have volume requirements, is not paying commissions out of membership fees and does qualify affiliates for higher commission rates based on self consumption and that of their recruited downlines, then there’s no problem.
As has been mentioned before and conveniently ignored products being attached to cash gifting scheme membership is nothing new. Nor does it make said schemes sustainable, those at the bottom still need to recruit new members in order to receive gifts.
Once that stops, kaboom.
If you want bright line rules, you will also need bright line definitions. You’ll need to separate between different TYPES, e.g. between “participant” and “consumer”. That’s what pyramid scheme cases are about.
A person purchasing products to promote himself to a higher income level is not a consumer, he’s rather a participant. It’s not about WHAT they do, it’s about WHY they do it, about “the desire to do something”.
In SpeakAsia, the investors didn’t buy “survey panels” as a product, they bought them as a necessary part of the income opportunity. In ZeekRewards, people didn’t buy “sample bids” as a product, they bought them as a part of the investment system.
The court in Belgium used that logic. It didn’t believe in Herbalife’s version about that low level distributors primarily were customers. The court used similar arguments as me about “consumer behaviour”, e.g. “Why would a consumer sign a 124 page distributor agreement?” and “Why would a consumer buy a starter kit, mostly containing samples?”.
You are the one preferring vague definitions, but complaining about the lack of bright lines in laws. You’ll need to clean up your own mess (where it’s originating), rather than complaining about the mess you feel is “out there in the legal system”.
You should probably test your own ideas, e.g. the “they bought survey panels” idea, and ask yourself “Does my ideas reflect a sound mindset?”. 🙂
yes norway , but unlike ordinary customers these are customers who are looking for a whopping 25 % discount .where’s the HARM in signing a piece of paper which will mostly not apply to the distributor since he has no intention to sell?
but yes, the buy back policy explained in this document could probably be useful in case the customer decided to return the product.
i can agree with the point about the starter kit “Why would a consumer buy a starter kit, mostly containing samples?”.
i think if herbalife and the DSA are looking to treat self consumption as retail then they probably have to run with my definition of customer, giving all options to a customer.
in order to achieve this they should discard ideas that will create distinctions. so starter kits should go, sales should begin with products directly, and start up information and guidance should be provided via an email and the one on one guidance of the upline.
i thought we whipped speakasia discussions to death, and agreed to disagree about the business model.
(Ozedit: SpeakAsia is a Ponzi scheme, end of story. This is not the place to push your pro-Ponzi agenda)
no , this sustainability shit should go .it’s been disproved by too many living examples. your tribe needs to come up with smarter reasons for WHY MLM’s [all pyramids at heart] are destined to crash .
Maths is maths.
Ladies and gentlemen this is the problem, Anjali thinks Ponzi and pyramid schemes are sustainable.
If you can’t figure out the funadmental sustainability flaw a pyramid and Ponzi scheme entails anjali, I think we’re done here. There’s no point carrying on for the sake of carrying on when you’re not even going to accept the most basic of facts.
I’m happy to carry on the discussion even if you’re misrepresenting the DSA and making up theories to support your position regarding distributor sales being retail, but I’m not engaging with someone who has deluded themselves into thinking Ponzi and pyramid schemes are sustainable. It’s a complete waste of time.
Yep, we’re done here.
Pyramid and Ponzi schemes are not sustainable. End of story.
There’s probably no harm to HIM, but plenty of POTENTIAL HARM to the company as the company can’t tell whether he’s really there for the discount, or to make money by reselling the stuff.
One makes him a customer / retail user. The other makes him a participant in the comp plan, which determines the legality of the ENTIRE company.
A company that doesn’t see this risk is burying its head in the sand.
Other than the simple logic that population on earth is limited?
And that your logic of “new people are born every day” was shot down by my rebuttal that “people die every day too”?
It is made very very clear in FHTM presentations that “no one gets paid anything until they sell some products”. You could sponser 1,000 people into the business, and no one would make a dime if you AND they didn’t sell some products!!
@terry
Doesn’t matter. All that matters is the business model.
If FHTM affiliates were earning more on recruitment (including distributor consumption) over retail sales, it was a pyramid scheme.
Food for thought: Herbalife only has around 30% retail sales revenue.
Herbalife probably has much less than 30% sale to external customers.
Herbalife’s business model looks very similar to franchise in some parts, or to a hybrid between MLM and franchise. That’s also reflected in the SIZE of the 124 page distributor agreement, and in the Nutrition Club rules.
The compensation model has 3 sections:
1. Discount on products, not part of the compensation plan.
2. Royalty overrides, this is the main part of the CP.
3. “Distributor facing” (watches, vacations, and so on)
1. Discount on products, not part of the compensation plan.
Discount on products is NOT compensation. Compensation has to be something the company has to pay OUT to the distributor, a monetary transaction from the company to the distributor.
Wholesale discount is a method that will allow sales leaders (SL) to earn money DIRECTLY from their non sales leaders (NSL) downline (or customers) through sale, WITHOUT involving the company.
* The company will be involved in SOME of the Shipping & Handling.
The sales process goes like this:
Customer or NSL downline can order from and pay SL (full price or discounted price), SL will then order from the company and pay a 50% price (or sell the goods directly from his own inventory).
The delivery process goes like this:
SL can deliver directly to his downline or customer from his own inventory, or his upline can deliver it, or the company can deliver it.
This part of the compensation model is more similar to franchise than to MLM. That’s probably WHY Herbalife has been so vague. Franchise will require full disclosure of income potential.
2. Royalty overrides, this is the main part of the CP.
This is the MLM part of the compensation model. It’s a normal MLM compensation plan, starting from Sales Leaders and up to higher levels, paying a total of 23% of the Suggested Retail Price SRP (8 levels deep or so).
23% of SRP doesn’t sound much, but it’s 36% of the total (discounted) revenue Herbalife has (not included what distributors can earn themselves by selling products).
This is real compensation, something the company has to pay OUT to the SL or higher levels.
3. “Distributor facing” (watches, vacations, and so on)
This is about leadership bonuses, used to reward leaders on different levels, e.g. “Millionaire Team”, “President Team” and so on. It’s around 16% of the total (discounted) revenue.
statement from paul orberson of FHTM dated 7th feb
read the article at http://www.wave3.com/story/21077127/fortune-hi-tech-marketing-inc-principals-paul-orberson-and-thomas-mills-issue-statement-on-litigation
Interesting that the press release was sent through a “reputation manager”, not through their lawyers.
Here is the DSA’s reaction and answer to the FTC complaint against FHTM:
Which brings up a somewhat relevant question… Is there a comp plan that actually does NOT deliver a 90+% failure rate?
Because if you look at the income disclosure statements of various MLMs, you’ll see that vast majority of them have abysmal success rate. 90+% of affiliates makes less than 10K a year, in most cases.
We need to pull the FTC analysis, get their definition of “success rate”, and apply it to EVERYTHING. 🙂
There’s a comment on Dooly’s mlmhelpdesk that said FHTM applied to join the DSA, but was denied 3 years in a row, so they gave up.
The higher the customer:affiliate ratio is, the lower the failure rate will be. Many customers : few affiliates = more money coming in from external sources per affiliate.
High internal consumption ratio = high failure ratio (there’s simply not ENOUGH fresh money coming in from external sources to reward people at the bottom).
So YES, you will probably be able to find some old compensation plans where the failure ratio is “acceptable low”.
DSA is INDIRECTLY pushing it in the opposite direction, allowing the failure ratio to be high rather than low, rewarding the organisers and people near the top, on the expense of the lower ranks.
The more saturated a market is, the higher the ratio for internal consumption will be. It will mostly be the distributors themselves buying the products. For DSA, that is fully acceptable.
FHTM’s Orbison “banned for life from anything resembling MLM”
http://www.mlmwatchdog.com/MLM_Fortune_High_Tech.html
Guess we’re never gunna see those wholesale customer statistics now…