You are here: Home / Archives for 2010
by on December 20, 2010 9 Comments

Leaders Leave Narc That Car…and throw a grenade in the trash can

MLM divorceBefore you read the below message from the Narc That Car leadership team (“The Affiliation”), understand I am in no position to confirm the accuracy of the facts stated in the message. At one point, they blatantly accuse NTC of running a pyramid scheme because nobody is “paying for the data.” They assert that the compensation plan is driven largely by a disguised recruitment fee i.e. the $50 monthly association fee. If accurate, their assertion would be correct. But regardless if the facts are accurate, I think the below message can start a different kind of discussion: When distributors get disenchanted with a company and decide to leave, what’s the best way to exit? Should they send a message to their entire database stating their objections as done by the people below? Or should they leave quietly while sending a generic message about their parting? To misquote Billy Shakespeare, “To talk trash or not to talk trash, that is the question.” And when is the right time to leave? Below, the people apparently knew of Narc’s problems long before they blasted the email. So can it be said that they knowingly promoted a pyramid scheme for a few months, but when it got too difficult to build the pyramid scheme, they quit because…..it was a pyramid scheme?

In this post, I have more questions than answers. I think it’s important for distributors to notify their team when they decide to exit. In a lot of cases, the downline looks to their leaders for inspiration and instruction. If the leader simply disappears, it would leave people asking questions and reaching false conclusions based on limited information. However, we all know that leaders rarely “disappear.” Usually, they go to another company and they try to take as many of the downline with them. Ultimately, this is the real reason behind some of the trash-talking exits…when people enroll via an emotionally charged pitch, it takes an equally emotionally charged message to get them to exit and go somewhere else.

Divorce is never easy. There’s no precise science as to how a distributor should leave. Their database has tremendous value and the financial pressure to tap into it is too great in most cases. So while we know most distributors will encourage their downline to quit and “gently nudge” them to re-enroll in the promised land, it begs the question: what’s the right way to do it? How should “The Affiliation” have handled this? Thoughts?

Begin message
To: All CSI Consultants
From: The Affiliation (Malcolm, Senghor, & Ronald Pope)
Re: Decision to be no longer associated with CSI
Date: 12/8/10

We, The Affiliation are writing this letter to officially inform you of our resignation of any and all involvement with Crowd Sourcing International as Area Directors, Corporate Consultants, and the Special Advisory Council to the CEO. As like many of you, we believed in the vision and the possibilities that this business model offered and we pursued this business with great zeal and passion. We successfully grew our business to over 30,000 Consultants in our few short months of being involved, hitting the top position of Area Director in record time of only 45 days. This unexpected explosive growth, exposed a lot of problem areas in both the business model as well as the corporate side, many of which we are more than sure you experienced your fair share of. During this period CSI lost tens of thousands of Consultants who stopped paying their web portal fees. . . .

We immediately began volunteering our time, resources, and efforts to lend whatever help we could to get the company back on track. When we met with CSI on Sep. 3rd we were told that CSI was facing closing its doors if things did not turn around within 60 days due to the Founder/Investor lack of willingness to continue to pay. With the company continuing to lose Consultants, and incomes dropping, we The Affiliation took on a paid consulting position to run the entire company with all staff, including the C.E.O, all resources, and activities falling under our jurisdiction and control. . . .

During our 75 day intimate involvement as Consultants and being responsible for everything at CSI we uncovered several items that are detrimental to the continued survival of CSI. These items were brought to the attention of the CEO and were continued to be overlooked and not addressed. Based on our 45 years in the industry, owning our own MLM, and consulting for many MLM companies we know that left unaddressed, these few but major areas will singlehandedly put CSI out of business. After this very successful campaign, the same very inexperienced leadership that was solely responsible for running the company in the ground in the first place has now elected to take back over to run the company. We feel these individuals don’t have the experience, know how, or a desire to address these major issues (because if they knew the answer, the company wouldn’t have been in the condition that we found it in, and they wouldn’t have had a need to hire us to save the company). It is for these reasons we are not willing to continue to invest or time, talents, and resources just to become the unwilling participants of a fourth failed attempt to provide a viable opportunity in this industry. As part of our agreement we would have to remain in control of all future decisions that related to the sales force and be actively involved in the correction of all the remaining issues that the company faced in order to continue to remain involved. Unfortunately CSI has elected to not honor that agreement and for these reasons and others we are resigning from all positions including our consultant Area Director position.

We know from your emails, calls, and conversations that many of you recommitted to this business based on the “New and Improved CSI” that we were building and we felt inclined to share with you the major reasons why we have personally chosen to walk away from our distributorship as Area Directors, and end any involvement whatsoever with Crowd Sourcing International. It wasn’t until we completely turned around a sinking company, that some of the leadership now has the confidence to reengage and have decided to come back. Therefore, we felt obligated to disclose our intentions due to the fact; many of you reengaged CSI due solely to our involvement.

The below listed items were discovered and brought to the attention of the CEO and to this day remain unaddressed.

1. We found that the company does not have anyone paying for the data. Not one single client was able to be produced which by all standards is classified as an illegal pyramid scheme. When you pay people 100% of their commissions out of the $49.00 web portal fee (based on solely recruiting) and no product or service is being sold this is defined as an illegal pyramid scheme. (still no clients paying for the data except for Todd Pearah, who is the Founder/Owner)
2. There is no one with any real networking experience to run the company. (As evident they had to employ our services to stay in business)
3. They are in a serious cash crunch and unable to make the necessary adjustments to remain viable and competitive in the market place.
4. Are still under the scrutiny of the BBB for not being able to produce proof of paying clients.
5. Portions of Consultants down-lines have disappeared during the conversion from the old CSI database and DPI (the new backend technology company).
In Closing, this is in no way meant as a personal attack on CSI, its ownership, or its employees but out of all respect for those of you who saw value in our work, our leadership, and commitment to see this opportunity through we felt we owed you notification of our decision and its reasoning. Even though Debra Aaron (President/CEO) and Todd Pearah (0wner/investor) specifically are in 100% direct conflict with the standards and code of ethics that we believe in and have always built our businesses on. We can’t tell anyone else how to conduct their business; we can only distance ourselves as we are now doing from the type of business they are comfortable in practicing.

This will serve as the only communication from The Affiliation regarding this matter and our reasoning for walking away from CSI.
However, in the event there is any type of rebuttal refuting the aforementioned items we have 350+ pages of documentation outlining our findings and our involvement and have no reservations in making them publicly available. . . .

We wish each and every one of you success and we will see you over the top!!!

Sincerely,

The Affiliation
End message

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,
by on December 6, 2010 1 Comment

Ultimate Web Cash Flowchart – MLM

Fast Company, a magazine for entrepreneurs, published the below infographic about the multiple revenue streams available on the internet. MLM had a large presence in the “Other” category. It got me thinking…

Based on what I’m seeing in the business, talking to prospective clients everyday, the network marketing model of distributing goods and services is on a tremendous growth curve. As the barriers to start a MLM are going down due to the ease of private labeling, low cost entry for software vendors and online marketing tools, countless people are saying “This is it. It’s my time.” The marketplace is starving for unique product…products with a story, products that say something about ourselves, products that add value. The demand for unique products has always been there; however, due to the high-cost nature of introducing products into the market, we sort of got generic, mass produced stuff. Times are changing. With next year’s infographic, I imagine the MLM circle will get a tad bigger.

Do you have any ideas you’d like to share about the “next big thing” in the direct sales space?

MLM revenue infographic

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
by on November 30, 2010 1 Comment

Netflix vs. Blockbuster: message from BK Boreyko

BK Boreyko, Founder and CEO of Vemma, gives an insightful talk about the growing opportunities for innovative direct sales companies. There’s a growing demand in the marketplace for innovative products sold person to person.

What do you think about BK’s video? Can you think of any other comparisons between the direct sales industry and other business models doing well today?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
by on November 22, 2010 Leave a Comment

Distributor Agreements: read the fine print

The Distributor Agreement is the equivalent of a Constitution that outlines the relationship between the company and distributors. The company agrees to ship product and pay on time while the new person agrees to countless terms spelling out the do’s and don’ts of marketing the products. When there’s litigation in the industry, it almost always involves one of the bottom provisions, which are all very common.

Non-compete

The non-competes usually restrict the distributor from promoting a competing product for a period of six months following resignation or termination.


Rationale

On the surface, this provision seems harsh. But from the company’s perspective, they’re investing resources for branding and marketing that the distributors leverage to build their downline / businesses. The non-compete ensures that distributors don’t cash-in (at least not immediately) on the investments made by the companies for personal gain. Check out this hospital example: a hospital invests $10 million in marketing to attract new patients. The doctors benefit from the investment via the increase in patients walking through the door. The doctors would not have had exposure to the new patients but for the hospital’s investment. In this case, a short non-compete would prevent the doctors from unfairly benefiting from the ad campaign…at least for a brief period of time. Plus, the noncompetes are negotiated. The doctors can agree to it or work somewhere else. It’s a hot button issue in the direct sales space. If the noncompete is short i.e. six months, it’s generally enforceable unless it’s too broad.

If you’re a distributor thinking about leaving your company and joining a company that sells a similar product, there’s really no way around the non-compete. It’s always best to wait it out unless the non-compete is overly restrictive i.e. duration is too long, the scope is too broad (preventing someone from selling candles when they were selling juice in their prior business), etc.


Non-solicitation

The non-solicitation provision is controversial. It typically prevents distributors from contacting people they did not personally enroll in the business. However, it happens a lot in the industry when leaders develop relationships with members in their downline. Technically, since they did not personally enroll those people, they are contractually precluded from contacting them for another business opportunity.


Rationale

The relationship between the distributors and the company is a partnership. In this partnership, the company agrees to provide marketing tools, IT infrastructure, customer service, cutting edge products and a fair compensation plan. The field has obligations as well such as their responsibility to market the business in an ethical manner. And since the company usually invests considerable resources in support of the distributors, and the distributors benefit by those dollars via increased sponsorship rates, the company has an interest in protecting its network. From the company’s perspective, the distributors never would have had a relationship with their non-personals in the downline but for the MLM opportunity. This is why distributors are allowed to solicit their personals (people they knew) and not allowed to solicit their non-personals (people they arguably did not know). Companies will say something like: “If it were not for our product, pay plan and goodwill in the community, you never would have known those people in your downline. Try building a MLM that sells $1,000 lemonade….you won’t sponsor anyone…we built that downline together.”

Distributors will argue against this provision by stating something like: “Although I did not personally enroll those people, I was instrumental in getting them involved…I showed them the plan, I worked with them and helped them build their businesses, I knew them before they enrolled…..” In court, this issue has gone both ways. It’s a tough one. The cases on point with this issue usually involves brokerage firms where a broker leaves a firm (a company like Morgan Stanley) and solicits the customers. Morgan Stanley has argued (and won), “Hey, we helped you develop that list.”


Dispute Resolution

The dispute resolution provision is where the companies really stack the deck in their favor. This provision almost always requires that all disputes be litigated in confidential arbitration.


Rationale


Under normal circumstances, disputes are litigated in civil court. One party files a publicly available lawsuit and the information that results from the lawsuit (exhibits, deposition transcripts, court testimony, etc) is usually available for public scrutiny. Proponents of arbitration clauses (companies) say that arbitrations are faster, fairer and less costly. On the other side of the argument, people argue the opposite: arbitrations are grossly unfair, stacked in favor of big businesses and they’re more expensive. Judges in civil courts, after all, are free. Arbitrators are paid by the hour (and they’re paid A LOT!).

In a confidential arbitration, the distributor is missing one of his or her most valuable bullets: their ability to generate public support. In David versus Goliath battles where the lone distributor is fighting a larger opponent, their only weapon, in addition to having good facts, is their influence with the public. However, in a confidential arbitration proceeding, they have ZERO leverage as they’re forced to litigate the contract (drafted by the company) in a predetermined forum (chosen by the company) without the ability to generate public support. It’s a tall order for distributors and the issue is controversial across the board.

One point in favor of arbitrations: they protect the company from malicious smear campaigns calculated to do harm by distributors looking to skirt around their obligations. Over the past 12 months, I’ve represented four companies dealing with threats from distributors to “go public!” and it was junk each time. An amped-up distributor can do a lot of harm in a short amount of time. Understand, there’s a difference between negative lies (smear campaign) and negative truths. The negative truths hurt more.

One point against arbitrations: distributors are not able to publicly discuss the case, which harms their ability to build support and build their case against a company.


Conclusion

Since the cost of entry is so low and the risk of loss is minimal with most companies, most people never take the time to review these agreements and negotiate accordingly. FULL DISCLOSURE: As an attorney, I have an obligation to draft the contracts in the best interest of my clients (companies), which means I load their gun with all of the available bullets mentioned above. But if distributors actually got together and said, “we’re not cool with arbitration provisions,” companies might be forced to reconsider. What do you think?

I’m currently on the Advisory Board for the Direct Selling Reps’ Association. We’re considering a certification process where companies would be required to have (and not have) certain elements in their contracts to pass the certification process. Think it’s a good idea?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
by on November 3, 2010 7 Comments

Amway Settles Multiple Disputes

The weather is cooler, the leaves are falling, the holidays are drawing near….peace is in the air. In the span of a few days, Amway has made two HUGE announcements about the settlements of pending lawsuits between itself and multiple parties. First, they announced the settlement between themselves and MonaVie, which was anticipated to be an epic battle between the MLM giants. Click Amway v. MonaVie to read the original complaint. In the lawsuit, Amway alleged MonaVie was using unfair marketing practices while raiding Amway’s downline.

In the same announcement, Amway announced a settlement with Orrin Woodward and TEAM. The Amway / Woodward / Team litigation has been insanely intense since August of 2007. I was there for the start and I’m certain there’s much relief on both sides as a result of the settlement. The Amway / Woodward litigation produced a cutting edge court opinion about the limits of First Amendment protection for anonymous bloggers that disparage a company. Click here for the opinion.

Second, Amway announced today of its settlement of the Pokorny class action lawsuit. News of this settlement is not really surprising given Amway’s loss over its arbitration provision back in April of 2010. This was a very contentious case and Amway’s exposure was substantial. Due to the size of this settlement, I anticipate more lawsuits like Pokorny will be filed against other MLMs that rely heavily on tool companies. It’s ok to work with tool companies; however, when the tail starts wagging the dog, it can lead to HUGE, Pokorny-like problems.

The past few years have been busy for Amway as they’ve made some efforts to clean up their house. They’ve lowered prices, implemented quality control standards for the tool companies, invested more in IBO training and….settled their lawsuits.

The real losers as a result of these settlements…..THE LAWYERS.

What do you think about this news of the settlements?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
by on October 20, 2010 6 Comments

MLM Training and the Importance of Competency


TRAINING…

it’s simultaneously the most important AND least talked about aspect in the direct selling industry. The relationships that develop between participants while building their businesses is the most important component that makes our industry special. And those relationships are solidified via training. It’s unique to the direct sales industry where sponsors are obligated to train and mentor their recruits about selling and team building. It’s through these deep relationships between participants that cultures and brands are built.

Some companies allow high level distributors to create training programs for their downlines. These are referred to as “tool companies.” I was baptized in the industry representing Orrin Woodward’s tool company, Team, when he was affiliated with Amway and subsequently MonaVie. These training programs are designed to offer plug-and-play solutions for new distributors…distributors are given the choice of plugging into the training program and receiving the tools necessary to build profitable businesses.

Standards

When companies allow distributors to create tool companies (not all of them do), there’s usually a qualification that needs to be met before they can begin promoting their program. The qualification is one that usually separates the professionals from the amateurs and it ensures that the best networkers, the networkers with real results (not theoretical), are the ones influencing the next generation of leaders. It makes sense to have high standards. When the value of a company’s brand lies in the hands of its distributors, they have a significant interest in ensuring their trainers are actually competent.

I’ve beaten up on MonaVie recently. When they led with a hand gun instead of a handshake and threatened a friend with a lawsuit, I was not impressed. Setting it aside, I want to highlight something they do really well: they only let highly qualified networkers run tool companies.

When Orrin Woodward transitioned over to MonaVie, we were never allowed to sell a single CD until after he reached the Black Diamond status. The bar was set, it was the same for everyone, and he had to jump over it like everyone else.

Lately, I’ve seen multiple tool companies pop up from distributors with minimal experience and small organizations….and their MLM companies allow it. These tool companies (which I will not reference by name) make the rookie mistakes of promising easy money. The pitch is always the same: “We’re going to use more social media….We don’t sell products….We just host conference calls….Just enroll three people and your business explodes….We just drive traffic to websites.” The end result is predictable: an inactive sales culture where the participants enroll with a lottery mentality and sit and wait for others to lead. True professionals in the space never make this mistake. They’re up front with the work requirements and they create duplicatable patterns that can be copied by anyone. When the rookies tell everyone “this is easy,” at some point boots need to hit the ground and when it’s time, they’re shocked that nothing happens.

Message for executives

When the value of your brand rests in the hand of your representatives, I would advise you only pass the megaphone to your most experienced sales reps. Simply because I’ve seen surgery on TV does not make me qualified to do the real thing. If you allow amateurs to create programs and hold themselves out as ambassadors of your company, you might develop a cancerous sales culture that could, and probably will, lead to hype, inappropriate product and income claims and trouble.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,
by on September 27, 2010 2 Comments

Presentation at Direct Selling Congress

I was invited by Ted Nuyten, founder of the prominent Business for Home website, to serve as a speaker at the inaugural Direct Selling Congress event in Amsterdam. What an honor! It was humbling to be surrounded by so many ambitious and talented networkers. Thank you, Ted, for the invitation. It was an outstanding day full of great content and fellowship.

Below is my presentation. I presented on ways companies can learn from Amway’s mistakes and subsequent adjustments. As the saying goes, the best teach is experience…and the best experience is always someone else’s! I hope you find it informative. Also, I’ve inserted some info below the video about some of the amazing people I met at the conference. Take care.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,
by on September 6, 2010 30 Comments

Day, et al, vs. Fortune High Tech Marketing

It was bound to happen at some point. Unlike the last lawsuit I posted about Fortune High Tech Marketing (which turned out to be a hoax), the below class action lawsuit against FHTM is legit. I pulled it off of Pacer, which is where American court documents are made publicly available.

The complaint is long but the allegations are simple:

1) Fortune is allegedly a pyramid because:
a) Sales Culture: The sales culture focuses predominantly on recruitment over selling. An accomplished sales rep in FHTM was quoted as saying: “We’re not looking to sell you something; we’re looking for team members.” The lawsuit is basically alleging that the field completely disregards selling and that the recruitment culture is standard behavior in the FHTM organization, which leads to serious misrepresentation.
b) Pay plan does not lead to true external sales: There are no real incentives in the pay plan for selling to nonparticipants. Allegedly, the reps are required to accrue 3 customer points before they climb the ranks; however, those points are accrued by the reps themselves….one point is gained by simply paying for access to the company’s website for back office support.
c) Commissions from Training fees!: I just wrote about this last week about why it’s a bad idea to pay commissions on sales aids. The lawsuit alleges that FHTM pays commissions when “certified trainers” train their downline managers (after the downline managers pay a $200 fee). Since the training fee has no relevance for nonparticipants, the plaintiffs are arguing that this is mainly a clever transfer of money from new investors to older ones, which is illegal.

I cannot predict if the allegations will prove true or not because I know very little about the FHTM model; however, it seems like the complaint focuses squarely on the FHTM policies and the pay plan, which means there’s not much wiggle room for FHTM. It will be hard for them to defend their practice of paying commissions on training fees, which I think is their largest problem.

FHTM reps habitually say “we have former state attorney generals on our legal team.” Allow me to address this point: simply because a company has hired “former AGs” as their attorneys, it does not mean that those AGs understand the industry. AGs have countless responsibilities and they might not understand the nuances in MLM law. I’m not saying FHTM’s lawyers are incompetent. I am saying that if there’s any truth to these allegations, any attorney with knowledge of this field would have either gotten FHTM on the right track a long time ago or would have withdrawn his or her representation. If the former AGs were recently hired, it’s a different story (clearly they lacked the time to clean up the house). However, if they’ve been on board for several years….it’s not good.

What do you think? Is this a raw deal for FHTM or is this long overdue?

Day, et al. v Fortune High Tech Marketing

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
by on September 1, 2010 7 Comments

Training Fees and monthly service fees: be careful.

I’m going to start this article with the conclusion: training fees and monthly service fees, when used to beef up a company’s compensation plan, are usually an attempt to support an anemic business model operating with low margins. It’s not a disaster if you see these “pay to play” fees. However, if a regulator takes exception with a particular company, an inappropriate monthly fee adds another bullet to the gun.

So what do I mean when I say “beef up the compensation plan?” This happens when companies charge a monthly fee (i.e. $30 a month) or a one time training fee (i.e. $500 training fee) from each rep in order for them to remain eligible for commissions. In exchange for this fee, the distributors get back office support, training and usually wholesale pricing on products and services. The money can be used to “beef up” the plan when its collected by the company and inserted into the commission pot. As an example, if a company charges $30 a month as a service fee and the distributors get a percentage of the service fee for each personally enrolled rep, it can spell trouble. However, if the monthly fee is more like a subscription fee and the subscription has relevance for people beyond the network, it’s a more palatable story.

The problem with injecting a pay plan with monthly fees is simple: the only way to tap into that money is via recruiting more distributors. When there’s no real market for the product or service for nonparticipants (people outside of the network), the transaction is viewed mainly as a money transfer from new investors to older ones. When Burnlounge was shut down by the FTC, they were pursued largely because their commission structure was allegedly fueled primarily by the usage fees paid by the distributors, not via the sale of their products. It’s a problem.

The old MLM mantra remains true: Companies should never pay commissions on sales aids. “Service fees” or “membership fees,” when there’s no real market for the fee outside of the distributor base, falls in line with this old mantra. What do you think? Can you think of any way around this rule?

Filed Under: Uncategorized
by on August 18, 2010 13 Comments

Negative Lies vs. Negative Truths…

Negative truths hurt more. On Troy Dooly’s blog, Dallin published his official response to dispel the rumors of a “death dive” in revenue. There’s one small detail missing from the statement: a denial of the rumor! While we’re questioning the wisdom of Rod Cook and Ted Nuyten’s reports about the decline, we’re failing to address the very issue that started this conversation: the veracity of the data on Ted’s site (link here). When given an opportunity to address the report, Dallin punted. After sending Ted Nuyten a threat laced with several allegations against his character, MonaVie failed to do two important things: they failed to apologize and they failed to deny the report. I want to talk about the report.

Recap

I want to quickly recap some events over the past few weeks. It starting with Rod Cook’s report about MonaVie’s decline in web traffic. Rod put out a video titled “MonaVie’s Death Dive.” He gave his opinion about MonaVie’s 60% drop in web traffic over the past year.

Fast forward to last week. Ted Nuyten publishes a report “from an anonymous source” stating that MonaVie was experiencing a dramatic decline of over 20% in revenue in 2010. He made a mistake when failed to provide the source of the information: Tracey Coenen’s site. Tracey is a forensic CPA, she’s accomplished (she worked for Arthur Anderson) and she’s a known anti-MLM person.

Fast forward a few days. MonaVie sends Ted Nuyten a threat of legal action. Ted responded and I chimed in. I’ll be honest: I get angry when I see big guys pick on little guys. MonaVie’s threat was unfair. But despite the threat, people are still teeing off on Ted questioning his decision to publish the data, which MonaVie has yet to deny as false. I’m not sure if most of you readers have ever been threatened with litigation by an enormous company. It’s not fun!

Dallin’s response

Update: I originally and accidentally included commentary from Troy Dooly as Dallin’s quote. This has been corrected.

Fast forward to today. Dallin Larsen published his official response. After Troy asked him a specific question about the rumors of a decline, Dallin responded as follows:

-Start quote-
“Troy, with our webcast in October, we will unveil the next phase for MonaVie. Let me simply say that in the words of Mark Twain,” the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.

We are a private company and don’t release our numbers but let me simply say that I just returned from 10 countries over the last 90 days and we are growing. Up in some markets and down in others. There’s a cycle in business and there’s a cycle in this industry. . .

Since MonaVie began operations in January of 2005, we’ve paid commissions accurately and on time, each and every week, and we will continue doing so.”
-end quote-

I’m not doubting in Dallin’s ability to take charge of his business and reposition it to win. I’ve met Dallin. I like him. That’s not the point. There’s a decline in traffic. There’s a plateau. So what? Companies cycle up and down. And when people opine on those cycles, it’s inappropriate to threaten them with litigation, especially when there’s a kernel of truth. Instead of commenting about the successes of prior years or the natural cycles of business, the focus of Dallin’s response should have been placed squarely on the issue that started this controversy: the reports of a serious decline in revenue.

If we, as a community, cannot discuss obvious facts about challenges faced by various companies, how can we improve? Ted’s article sparked a great debate. Now people will be watching MonaVie in October to see how they re-tool their business for the future.

This is very simple sequence of events: Rod Cook posted a video about a decline in web traffic. Ted posted an article about MonaVie’s decline in revenue. Ted was dubbed “irresponsible,” accused of publishing “half truths” (without any facts to shed insight about the half that was not true) and threatened with a lawsuit. MonaVie via Dallin Larsen did nothing to dispel the rumors. And yet, we’re beating up on the guys that reported on this in the first place…Does anyone else see a problem?

Rod and Ted

Rod Cook’s report was confirmed by Dallin. He’s off the hook. There’s nothing wrong in publishing a decline in web traffic. When compared to other companies, the web data is important and lines on a graph that go down are not as good as lines that go up. Pointing out the obvious should not cause widespread panic. Ted’s decision to comment on MonaVie’s plateau was not inappropriate. The issue really lies in whether those stats are accurate. This leads me to a special request.

Second chance

Troy Dooly, I know you have the golden phone to Dallin Larsen. If you see fit to do it, please send him a message or give him a call and ask him if MonaVie is experiencing a 20% decline in revenue in North America as stated on Ted’s site (give or take a few percentage points). If the answer is yes, ask him why they threatened Ted with a lawsuit. I think those are fair questions and they get at the very heart of the issue.

If we are to remain in the dark about the specific figures (MonaVie is under no obligation to provide this info; however, after accusing Ted of publishing malicious lies, I think they’ve opened the door and it would be appropriate) and if MonaVie reports a 20% decline in North America at the end of the year, I think a lot of people will owe Ted Nuyten an apology. What do you think?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts