| Author |
Message |
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#61 · Posted: 29 Jul 2007 22:11
Ina actually I did further research into R2R thats why I am concerned about the affiliate name you place on the $49.95 option. It's NOT an affiliate option as you make 100% commission on the sale.
Again that was the problem with PAS. They offered you to join and make 100% commissions of the re-sale of a biz opp. R2R without the $49.95 option is fine. If you pay the full $999 fee and have the rights to re-sell the library then thats great. That is totally legal
If we use your word "affiliate" to suggest that you can pay the $49.95 fee and sell the business and the biz opp and make $999 (100% commission) and somehow we're okay with that, what happens when you actually have someone else signup under you in the $49.95 option(buying a biz opp). They pass up 4 sales to you. What if some of those 4 sales are doing the same thing. You get to a point where not many of the library is being sold and it's just the $49.95 option being exercised. Product-less. That is PAS. That is what opens R2R to problems. This is something I didn't consider and many people won't. I don't think you yourself have considered that. I myself at one stage wanted to join R2R and open up another income stream. When I did more research and actually thought about the possibilities, this is where I found the weakest point to be. It is a matter of understanding and nothing else.
Please don't assume my words. I am not spreading rumors. I am discussing facts of the business opp itself. I haven't mentioned that the FTC or any other authority will shut down R2R, I am saying this is what will encourage them to have a closer look.
I can't see what point you are trying to make. You are comparing this portion of the business to EDC. There is no similarity. You simply cannot partake in EDC without purchasing the product package. R2R is offering a way around the product package. There are millions of affiliate programs online that offer you a back office, means of advertising, banner ads, keywords lists all for free. I know I promote many companies and earn via affiliate programs. In this case the option of promotion of the so-called affiliate program doesn't exist without forking out the $49.95 monthly fee. If the option did exist then your arguments can be justified. But unfortunately they don't. Again there is the problem of earning 100% commission on a affiliate program. That isn't entirely legal. Again refer to PAS.
I am voicing my opinion, as in my time with these types of businesses I've come across too many people who have been screwed left, right and center because they wouldn't do their own research. Many of them were lied too. It is a moral issue. If you read my comments correctly I am not saying the whole entire program is illegal. Simple put it's not. Just a component isn't entirely right, which may open it up to possible scrutiny. No rumor there.
I think we all have a moral duty. I'd like to see your response be a discussion on this fact and not a question on what my motive might be.
I would certainly hope that you wouldn't shy away from the truth if it ever occurred to you.
|
Power_Advisor27
Forums Member
Joined: 29 May 2007
Posts: 62
|
#62 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 01:58
I was under the impression that an affiliate program was any program that rewarded an affiliate for referring customers and/or new affiliates. I've never seen anywhere that in order to be an affiliate program, the program must only reward a percentage or an amount less than 100% commissions. I've done quite a bit of research, much stemming from the article that outlines affiliate marketing from Wikipedia. Nowhere did I see stipulations stating that in order to be considered an affiliate program, the program must pay out less than 100%. Nor did it list any specific standards for payout amounts. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with an affiliate program paying out 100% commissions. If you have found this anywhere, please post it or contact me so that I can investigate. I've never heard of such, so it should be interesting research. This is what I found in regards to affiliate programs and affiliate marketing in Wikipedia:
Affiliate marketing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Affiliate marketing is a method of promoting web businesses (merchants/advertisers) in which an affiliate (publisher) is rewarded for every visitor, subscriber, customer, and/or sale provided through his/her efforts.
This has always been my idea of what an affiliate program is, which is why I use the term. There is always a possibility that folks will join in at the affiliate-only level, and that others will do the same under them. If this was the only way to earn money, we'd have a problem. But it is not the only way, and that is my whole point.
If you'd rather call it a home based business, you can do that too because it certainly is that. But someone paying a monthly fee to be involved in a business that sells actual product isn't wrong, so long as the monthly payment actually provides the person paying it with a service or product, which RTR does. It is not like a person is paying $49.95 for absolutely nothing. They pay $49.95 for the home business package, which includes a marketing website, lead-capture pages, a flash movie and a back office in which to track sales and distribute product. I believe PAS offered something similar, but it was all the business consisted of, the only option. As this isn't the case for RTR, I don't feel that there is a problem. Not to mention, most distributors that I've talked to and ads that I've seen aren't promoting this option. I've seen most promoting the product purchase. It is simply an option for those who'd rather just promote the products, but it isn't by any stretch the main focus of this business.
If nothing else, if the FTC had a problem with this, they'd probably require the company to remove this option. It doesn't seem likely that they'd shut down the entire business because of an option that isn't even the main focus of the business. The FTC does allow home business companies a chance to comply with their guidelines before shutting them down. Most do not comply in time, or try to find a way around it, and that's why they end up closing down.
I too have come across many who've been screwed and lied to. But just because the business I'm involved in has an aspect that you don't agree with, doesn't mean we're out to screw folks. I too believe in the moral duties that we all have, which is why I encourage interested customers and potential business owners/affiliates (whatever you want to call them) to do ample research on the company, products and person they're interested in joining with. And it's why I conduct business as I do (providing info without asking anything in return, focusing my promotion more so on the products, not pressuring those who are interested, not using hype/lies to attract attention. It's why I join forums such as this and offer information without promoting myself. My duty is to give all of the information about the business and its products so that those interested can make their own informed decision. I do not sugar-coat anything, skate around the facts, or hide any info whatsoever.
It is why I say that as long as distributors are targeting the correct marketings, there won't be a problem. If I'm only targeting entrepreneurs or folks interested in earning money online, then of course I'll get into a situation where a pyramid is created. That is true not just of RTR, but any business out here. However, if I'm targeting markets that include folks who'd be interested in just purchasing the product, then I will have sales from end users as well. The affiliate-only option is just that, an option. It does not make up the whole business.
I am not comparing just this portion of RTR to EDC. I'm comparing the entire business structure. Based on what I've seen from past FTC investigations and rulings (researching from their website), they don't just look at a portion and rule one way or another. They look into several aspects of the business being investigated, and investigate distributors and they way they are operating. The problem with PAS was that the pyramid-type structure was the only option at the time it was being investigated. I have heard from several places now that the main guideline that the FTC uses in its rulings of home businesses is that a company and/or distributor must show that at least 50% of sales were to end users, that at least 50% of income earned was not from a pyramid-structure or from recruiting new members. If this is true, then I feel that RTR has nothing to worry about. And again, if distributors are expanding their markets to include consumers as well as entrepreneurs, they will not have anything to worry about either.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have yet to find a free affiliate program that offers a complete marketing website with integrated eCommerce as well as lead-capture pages and flash movies tailored to the business. Nor do I know of any affiliate programs that provide truly helpful marketing training along with such tools for free as well. I'm not new to affiliate marketing. I know that many free affiliate programs offer some type of back office, and even banners, text links and mini store fronts to advertise the products. Here is the thing. We all know that one of the most important aspects of building a successful business is driving quality traffic. While those free affiliate programs may provide banners, little flash store fronts and the like, those affiliates have to have a blog or website of their own, and have to know (or find out) how to drive the amount and kind of traffic necessary to produce sales. RTR provides more than just banners and text links or a mini store front. They provide a fully functional website with payment processing already integrated. It is not cheap to hosts hundreds of websites that have the capabilities to receive large amounts of traffic. Most hosting providers charge higher prices for limitless bandwidth, streaming and such. I'm sorry, but as a business owner, I'd have to charge for the use of these websites and tools in order to offset the costs of maintaining the sites for everyone. If maintaining the sites, hosting files and streaming video/audio was all free, I doubt the company would charge for those things. But that isn't the case. They have to spend money to provide those services, so in turn they charge the affiliate for use of the services.
If you say that you're only referring to one aspect of the business and not the whole business, then so be it. No one knows better than you what you meant. However, understand that you're picking at one aspect (that isn't required, encouraged, or regularly promoted; actually discouraged on the corporate websites and by most distributors,) out of an entire business model. It is only offered as an option to those who may not be interested in purchasing the product but may, for whatever reasons of their own, want to promote the program (or possibly even raise enough money through sales to purchase it later on for themselves, as some folks I know have done). If it brings scrutiny, then so be it. However, if the FTC finds it has a problem with this aspect being a part of the model, it will address it. The FTC will also go on the number of complaints it has received. Depending on these and other factors, it will make a decision. Again, this is why I say that being honest with customers and/or affiliates from the start will eliminate a lot of the misconceptions that breed disgruntled ex-affiliates or dissatisfied customers. If the FTC ever decides to investigate RTR, it will take into consideration the number of complaints. If that number is low (due to honest business dealings), it will be noted and considered.
I understand why you did not feel it necessary for yourself to join. And I could understand if you were upset with folks for promoting only that $49.95 option. Since we're not yet experiencing that, lets cross that bridge when we get to it. For now, most distributors are focusing on promoting the product package (and in many cases the affiliate program along with it). That is the way it should be. Let us return our attention to providing information about the program. It isn't helpful to dwell on one aspect. There is a bigger picture, and it's that bigger picture which is what will benefit most. I continue to encourage those involved to to promote the products, and to target markets that include customers as well as potential business owners. This is what will bring success that you can be proud of!
I've enjoyed the debate thoroughly. I think we've both really brought everything about the program to light. That will really help those doing research on the program. If anyone has any questions, feel free to contact me or post them here. The more that's brought up, the more we all learn!
-PA27
__________________
|
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#63 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 08:46
Ina, I have no idea what is driving you away from actually facing the reality of what I am saying. You make assumption after assumption on what many of the distributors are doing. You cannot not possibly know what anyone is doing except the handful you have come in contact with. Unless you have eyes everywhere on the internet you will never know.
Also re-read your definition of Affiliate marketing. There is a differentiation between the merchants/advertisers and the actual publishers(affiliate). One promotes the other for a reward. If one party makes 100% commission then who is who? Almost all of the others I have read speaks of revenue sharing, which is not happening here. Whilst we are on the subject, I assume you attached the term affiliate program to this aspect of the program and it's not something Brian has deemed it??? If you are calling it an affiliate program then in my opinion you are misrepresenting the option.
Now I'll make another attempt to make my point clearer. The whole business concept is fine. The product packages encompass the overall product and biz concept to form an overall legal offer. I was one of the first to come out and congratulate the offer of a product package that can be beneficial to people. I have said I am involved in metaphysics and have also endorsed some of the items as being quite beneficial. None of that is up for dispute.
How much it costs R2R to host the websites and the back end is also of no concern. I have been involved with online marketing for a good 8 years and have run online businesses. It doesn't cost all that much to run a few servers that hosts replicating websites, which also offer either quite high bandwidths or unlimited bandwidths. A tech Savvy person can do that quite easily for just a few hundred a month. In my experience that kind of money could easy purchase 4 - 5 dedicated servers. Heck I have streaming videos on 2 of my sites, I have 500gigs of transfer at only $4.95 a month. That's alot!!!! Do more research, and you will be amazed.
On the question of affiliate programs offering you everything, I have had companies that provide everything. One in particular, and online jewelry company that not only provided the back office, the marketing packages, but also had a dedicated affiliate department that worked with the affiliate to create personalized sales sites, which they also hosted free of charge. To make assumptions about the existence or non-existence of anything on the internet would be ignorant of us to wouldn't it? We simply don't know what is out there. We are limited to our own experiences.
Now your comment on whether "MOST" of the distributors you know are promoting or not promoting the option is not of any concern either. Firstly, you DON'T, cannot know, will not know what most of the distributors are doing. Secondly, whether or not they promote the option doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean that it will never be the focus of any scrutiny.
You mention that the option is not by any means the main focus of the business. That is entirely beside the point. You are not focusing on the point. The option doesn't have to be the focus of the business. If you read correctly I mention that it is a weak point of the overall business structure. Of particular concern is the option. It is apart of the package on offer. I will get to my point soon on what makes the option a risk.
You are making the mistake of assuming the "IFs" of what the FTC will do, see. Again, that is not something that you can second guess . Yes through hear-say, third party sources and even via some jargin off the FTC site itself you can pick up bits and pieces of what process the FTC may employ. You cannot make assumption on what is a benchmark before the FTC will stand up and take notice. The industry that these businesses - PAS, Emerald PP, EDC, R2R, P2W etc operate in will be what comes into scrutiny. Not just one particular business. Just like it has been done with the hyips. One too many complaints is enough to warrant an investigation into the practices in the industry. PAS has already kick started that off, and I am sure that there have already been complaints about other programs, including EDC. Please Please don't make assumptions on what action the FTC can do. They don't have to give anyone time to comply. They can ask for a subpoena to be issued that will halt the operations of any organization whilst an investigation is launched.
The aspect of the business I am discussing is not one that I don't agree with. I quite liked the idea of having a cheaper option to road test an opportunity. However, it is the aspect of the business that the FTC has already set a precedent on - PAS. If you recall it was shut down whilst an investigation was launched.
Now, how someone goes about marketing something, doesn't change the original product. It also doesn't automatically make it legal. It's like saying Marijuana is illegal in most countries, however if we don't market the harmful effects of it, then it's all legal. How about we just market the medicinal qualities off it, then it should all be okay. Or Cocaine, although it's illegal, how about we market it so people are informed about how you can experience a brief moment of nirvana. As long as it's not marketed as being a drug. Just as a means to an experience. That is bending the truth, sugar coating, and in your own words 'skate around the facts'.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 If I'm only targeting entrepreneurs or folks interested in earning money online, then of course I'll get into a situation where a pyramid is created.
Your words! Exactly my point! This option, which does only target the entrepreneurs is what will cause a pyramid scheme develop! You cannot go ahead and make assumptions on it not happening, because it will happen. One person who joins the $49.95 deal will promote their own motivations and recruit someone else who will be another entrepreneur, who signs up in the $49.95 option, and this will go on and on and on. In this scenario not many of the product packages are being sold. Who makes the money? the company. A large majority of the people who join this option may never get through or past their 4 pass up, eventually they will cancel their payments and giveup. If you can say that the person who signs up the $49.95 option, becomes a paid affiliate (which is something I have never encountered), and is only allowed to promote the product package and biz opp combined and that is all then everything is fine. Let me say it again in other words - where the 'affiliate' isn't allowed to sell, and the system is designed to prohibit him/her from selling the $49.95 option, then all is good, and I will walk away and apologize to everyone for my ramblings. But unfortunately, this isn't so.
The question of this happening in other programs like EDC doesn't occur, as every sale in the other programs encompasses the product packages. So your comparisons again are not correct.
Now in regards to the mention of your 50% rule, I haven't been able to source that from the FTC. When it comes to legalities for anything, third party sources are considered hearsay and never admissible in a court of law. Even if this was true, then how can that ever be enforceable on the internet. The FTC won't just individualize distributors. Thats something the IRS does.
Going back to your comments on the process and the method used in FTC rulings is misrepresented. Yes, an overall investigation is what should be carried out in the ideal world, but it doesn't always happen. However, that makes no difference to this discussion. If one aspect of any business is out of line, despite the fact that the rest of the structure is all above board, won't ever make this aspect okay. I can't even see how you can argue that point. It takes me back to the marijuana example. It's bad, but overall it can be good, so it's all good right? Good + bad + good = overall Good???
Yes, I am only referring to the one aspect of the business, and mind you everyone knows it because I've said it over and over again. You just haven't been reading it. Again whether it is encouraged or not on the corporate website doesn't mean the option doesn't exist. It is there. On a contractual basis the OFFER is there. Also you say it is discouraged by "MOST" distributors. MOST isn't ALL! Most really isn't good enough.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 Again, this is why I say that being honest with customers and/or affiliates from the start will eliminate a lot of the misconceptions that breed disgruntled ex-affiliates or dissatisfied customers.
Lolz isn't this exactly what I am trying to do with my posts?? So why are you trying to dispute it??? If the ex-members are not made aware of it, won't they only cause problems for the existing members by going and nagging the feds?
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 If the FTC ever decides to investigate RTR, it will take into consideration the number of complaints. If that number is low (due to honest business dealings), it will be noted and considered.
That is an assumption you cannot and should not make. You are not the FTC.
My not joining is not a matter of necessity, but of choice - an informed decision. Anything of this nature is an investment. One should always weigh up the pros and cons, the associated risks etc. I am not upset about the promotion of the $49.95 offer. It's not something to get emotional about. It's business. If my research and my opinion can open someone eyes about some misunderstanding, then this discussion has been worth it.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 Let us return our attention to providing information about the program. It isn't helpful to dwell on one aspect. There is a bigger picture, and it's that bigger picture which is what will benefit most.
Any aspect, I say again, any aspect of the program is apart of the program. You can look at the forest as much as you want, but it is the t
|
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#64 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 09:00
Lol the post was so long they cut me off.
I was saying you can look at the forest as much as you want, but it is the trees that make up the forest. Each aspect of the program is what makes up a program. Each pillar of a house contributes in sharing the load of the overall building. They are equally as important in the makeup.
I am only asking for the recognition of the possibility of the misuse of the option. You've already done that.
Accepting it is always the first step. I know everyone means well, but one can often mislead others in our quests.
I'm going to bed now....take care all.
|
Power_Advisor27
Forums Member
Joined: 29 May 2007
Posts: 62
|
#65 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 12:41
What is "reality" for you is not necessary an ultimate truth, jseses. It is your opinion. You do not agree with something, therefore you're against it and will try at all costs to dissuade others from being interested as well. There is nothing wrong with that. However, what you perceive as truth isn't fact, it isn't being investigated or proposed to our knowledge, therefore it is simply your opinion or conjecture. I have a different opinion, and I'm strong in my beliefs. That is all. Also, I have never assumed that I know what every single distributor is doing. I have stated that the ones I have spoken with and the ads I've seen (that being the most important factor) are not promoting the $49.95 option. The only other thing I've done is to encourage distributors to be honest in their dealings. But you and I simply don't don't agree on this aspect of the program, as to whether it is legal or right. For now, neither of us knows the truth according to law, and we won't until it comes up. We will have to agree to disagree and let that be that.
As far as the statements I've made about the FTC, it is what I've gained from researching their past investigations and rulings. In most of these (available for research on their website), they considered several aspects, not just one. Also, in the cases on their website, there were large amounts of complaints, which led the FTC to investigate in the first place. What I've said is not an assumption. It is what they've done in most cases. There are exceptions I'm sure. I agreed that I have no way of knowing what their ruling would be in my last post. However, if you can make conjectures, so can I. And I've bothered to base them on research, just as you have, not just an opinion out of the air. As you don't know what the FTC will do either, it is just as wrong for you to make a conjecture as it is for me. So I say for both of us to leave the possibility of federal investigations out of this discussion, as it's not an issue now and we'll have no proof on either side until it comes up (if and/or when it comes up).
You are right, I did recognize the possibility that some may misuse the affiliate-only option. But it's just that, a possibility, not a guarantee. That does not make RTR a terrible company not worth dealing with. And that's why I encourage others to operate as ethically as possible. And on the other side of the fence, it's why I encourage those interested, whether potential customers or affiliates, to do ample research on the company and the seller/sponsor. I am not putting RTR on a pedestal. I am simply showing that it can be a legitimate way to earn an income from home, and has been for many people so far. There will be always rotten apples in the bunch who abuse options or mislead others. Doing ample research on the program and the distributor and not falling for hype (for customers), and operating the business ethically (on the part of the distributor) will eliminate a lot of that problem. There are folks who lie and mislead others in EDC as well. Does that make the business any less legitimate? I don't think so. I feel that it all comes down to the individual distributors. The company itself is set up so that we can operate ethically. That is what matters to me. And if we happen to catch folks pushing that option just to get more money out of folks and creating the dreaded pyramid, then we must report them to the company, as part of our moral duty. All of our awareness and active involvement will help to keep this company running as it should.
We simply have different opinions. I don't believe that will ever change. You feel that the business isn't legitimate because of the affiliate-only aspect. I feel that it can be a great business when you work it correctly, just as with EDC or the other companies. Essentially, we want the same thing though we have differing ideas on how to get there. We both want to lessen or, if possible, eliminate the possibility of others being ripped off. I trust enough to feel that you're not trying to mislead folks, because I've seen how you work. You have so far spoken with integrity and I respect you for that. All I ask is that you trust in the same, because I have proven myself in the same way beyond this situation. I have only ever tried, in this business or EDC, to provide honest and upfront information. I have not hidden any info about RTR, it's products or comp plan. I am not encourage unethical behavior. But I do believe in the business because of what it offers, which are products and options that can help folks better themselves, both personally and financially. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a part of it.
My feelings on RTR as a company are my opinions. I feel that it's a great company that offers helpful products and a great way to earn additional income. I feel that this business, like any business, works best when folks are honest. I don't feel that RTR has any more potential for dishonest than any other business opportunity. However, I respect that you feel differently. With that said, I do see that there is a possibility of the FTC becoming interested and investigating, as with any home based business. I don't deny this. But I do feel that it's just that, a possibility. We do not know, therefore neither of us should assume. I do agree with that.
What I suggest, for all involved, is that we speak only on what we have personal knowledge of. I have personal knowledge of RTR, as I'm a member. Therefore I speak on it. I also have knowledge of EDC, as I'm a member. I don't bother to go into forums about programs that I've never been involved with and try to speak about them, because I have no personal knowledge or experience to draw from. I ask that those with no personal experience or knowledge of this program not present their opinions, negative or positive, of the program as facts. I will make the effort not to speak about FTC investigations or any other aspects that I don't have personal knowledge of. However, I will maintain that RTR can be a great opportunity for customers and distributors alike. Operate ethically, do ample research, and there will be no problems.
I'm available to answer any questions that anyone may have about this company. You are also welcome to visit my website for further details.
Success to All!
-PA27
__________________
|
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#66 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 20:43
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 What is "reality" for you is not necessary an ultimate truth, jseses. It is your opinion. You do not agree with something, therefore you're against it and will try at all costs to dissuade others from being interested as well.
Ina, do you actually read what I write or do you assume it? I did not say reality of what is the ultimate truth, I said the reality of what I am saying. There is a HUGE difference. I am talking about the literal approach of my words that will lead you to a literal understanding! Not one that you want to understand by your own force. Everything you say is an assumption. Please read and then re-read if you don't understand. Take the words on face value, rather then trying to twist the meaning. There are no connotations here!!!!!! Very SIMPLE!
Again, no one is trying to dissuade anyone at all cost. Assumption after assumption. It is a matter of understanding Ina not of assuming. A statement of fact is not dissuasion of anything. You are trying so very hard to disrepute me, that you are failing to see the points.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 However, what you perceive as truth isn't fact, it isn't being investigated or proposed to our knowledge, therefore it is simply your opinion or conjecture.
I am not perceiving anything. Your assuming it! I have not spoken of any sort of an existing or impending investigation. You brought all that in to a simple discussion about one option of the program.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 I have never assumed that I know what every single distributor is doing. I have stated that the ones I have spoken with and the ads I've seen (that being the most important factor) are not promoting the $49.95 option.
You have always stated what MOST are doing you are aware off. Most refers to a majority. You don't know the majority of people. You are misleading people. Also, you yourself have said that as long as most people don't do it, then its okay. How would you ever know what most people are doing? Besides that, whether or not this option is promoted makes no difference. The fact is that when people come into join, they will have the option available to them. When one who joins the $49.95 option, then recruits someone else who joins the $49.95, then you are creating a pyramid. That little part there is the problem. You speak of the fact of law. How many times do I have to tell you the FTC has already set a precedent on that??? By trade I am a lawyer. I've been trained to look at things much differently to what a lay person sees it.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 However, if you can make conjectures, so can I. And I've bothered to base them on research, just as you have, not just an opinion out of the air. As you don't know what the FTC will do either, it is just as wrong for you to make a conjecture as it is for me. So I say for both of us to leave the possibility of federal investigations out of this discussion, as it's not an issue now and we'll have no proof on either side until it comes up (if and/or when it comes up).
Lol now if you want to bring mathematical terms into this, so be it. However, I am not making conjectures. I am interpreting fact. I have no attention of leading this into the formation of a theorem. My comments originally had nothing to do with the FTC. You brought them in. I was discussing an option. You brought in the technicalities of the investigating bodies. I have never said what, or assumed what the FTC will do. That has solely been your department.
BTW here is a conjecture - good + bad + good = overall good, so it's all good?????
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 You are right, I did recognize the possibility that some may misuse the affiliate-only option. But it's just that, a possibility, not a guarantee.
I should say I rest my case!
You keep proving my point in your arguments. Then you contradict yourself. If you live in a perfect world then maybe your statement has some merit. In a perfect world no one will speed. We won't have any car crashes. No one will die on the road. It's against the law to speed. Yet, why do people speed? Oh that's right because the cars can actually go beyond that of the speed limits. There is always that possibility but it was never guaranteed that someone won't speed. But then again, if MOST of them are not speeding, then it's all fine.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 That does not make RTR a terrible company not worth dealing with.
Hmm where did I ever say that R2R is a terrible company? Or that no one should deal with it? Someone should go back and start reading the thread from the start again. This is the biggest assumption you have made so far. This is what you are basing your arguments around. It's strange when that comment was never made. Actually, I don't think anyone has said anything along those lines in this thread.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 There are folks who lie and mislead others in EDC as well. Does that make the business any less legitimate?
Wow you really don't read do you? Yes people lie and mislead, and it is all against the law to do. The FTC have a home business rule about this. Again you've brought EDC into it. I'll say it again, please read it carefully as I hate having to repeat myself over and over again - EDC does not have an option which is outside that off the product packages. There are members who heavily discount prices which is also illegal, but the option just does NOT EXIST.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 I feel that it all comes down to the individual distributors. The company itself is set up so that we can operate ethically. That is what matters to me. And if we happen to catch folks pushing that option just to get more money out of folks and creating the dreaded pyramid, then we must report them to the company, as part of our moral duty. All of our awareness and active involvement will help to keep this company running as it should.
What are you talking about here? No one is going to promote that option because apart from the company, no one is going to make any money from it. The $49.95 will be paid to the company. Then there is the assumption that these people will actually be able to make 4 pass up sales. The problem is that the option is available. In your experience with EDC, you must have come across people who begged you to let them in for free and allow them to just pay the $49.95 and in exchange they'll give you their first 3 - 4 sales. I had hundreds of them. I sent out daily emails saying sorry mate that's illegal. I had one guy from Nigeria who sent in the $350 amount to craig, then emailed me telling me that he's done that and he can't afford payment blah blah blah. I know your going to ask, we sent his money back. In the case of R2R they don't need to ask, it's an available option. It doesn't come down to the distributors as it's an option on the site. You yourself, by your words agree to this. You just don't want to admit it.
You mention dreaded pyramid! I REST MY CASE AGAIN!!!!!!
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 We simply have different opinions. I don't believe that will ever change. You feel that the business isn't legitimate because of the affiliate-only aspect.
Assumption again! The "L" word never really came up in my posts. We don't actually have differing opinions. You have agreed to everything I have said about the option. You just don't want to admit it. Here is me making an assumption - you think that by you actually coming out and opening agreeing then you may not get any business, after all you've already paid the $999. Here's a conjecture for you - if you understand my original comments to lead to actually making the business opportunity stronger, and not weaker, then you would also understand that exemplifying a weak aspect of the program may lead to early reform, or better acceptance of the program. So Fact - [possible connotations(reform)] + prohibition = One hell of a business opportunity.
The business is entirely legitimate. Just that one aspect of it will create problems when this enterprise really kicks off the ground. When the pyramids start forming outside of Egypt, then someone may say hmmm. You've already agreed to this. Which leads me to wonder what the hell we're arguing about when we both agree. That is what I was originally discussing before padding started to be added about things that did not concern this.
Up until now so many people have tried to call programs like EDC and P2W pyramid schemes. Not having this option was what allowed us to make the argument that it is not a pyramid scheme. The $999 option is great. No problems there. You just assume I have a problem with it.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 We both want to lessen or, if possible, eliminate the possibility of others being ripped off. I trust enough to feel that you're not trying to mislead folks, because I've seen how you work.
Your right about one thing - I want to eliminate problems. One of the training I've done is Six Sigma. It is entirely about process improvement. Where I will assess a company's entire business process, then advise them on what they need to do to make it perfect. When I look at this option, I see a problem waiting to happen. I would really like it, if Brian would consider it and reform the option. By this I mean where the script itself won't allow someone who signed up in the $49.95 option to be able to signup someone else into the $49.95 option. So all they are allowed to do is sell the product package for $999. Simple problem solved. Brian would have one hell of a biz opp on his hands. It doesn't matter if they don't actively promote it, but the option will be there for people to take up.
Now, what would
|
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#67 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 20:44
Now, what would I possibly be misleading people about? I did't make assumptions. I saw a weak point in the program and I wrote about it. How am I misleading them? I haven't said run in the opposite direction or even don't sign up. Have I? I am not afraid to speak of the truth. If some people don't like it, there isn't anything I can do about it.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 All I ask is that you trust in the same, because I have proven myself in the same way beyond this situation. I have only ever tried, in this business or EDC, to provide honest and upfront information. I have not hidden any info about RTR, it's products or comp plan. I am not encourage unethical behavior. But I do believe in the business because of what it offers, which are products and options that can help folks better themselves, both personally and financially. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a part of it.
Yes, I understand all of that, however, that is beside the point. As I have said Ina it is a matter of understanding what I am saying. You took what I said in my original post as personal criticism of yourself and the program. Which didn't ever happen. Due to that you didn't see what I have been saying. Although in your posts you have agreed with everything I have had a problem with. All it takes is one plank with termites to bring the whole house down. I think R2R is a good program with one bad plank. Instead of arguing about it, it would be more worthwhile fixing it. If we all dealt with problems this way, then there would be no wars in this world.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 My feelings on RTR as a company are my opinions. I feel that it's a great company that offers helpful products and a great way to earn additional income.
As a company everyones opinion is the same. No one ever said anything about the company. I never have. The company hasn't done anything bad. Yes the products are helpful. No dispute there.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 However, I respect that you feel differently. With that said, I do see that there is a possibility of the FTC becoming interested and investigating, as with any home based business. I don't deny this. But I do feel that it's just that, a possibility. We do not know, therefore neither of us should assume. I do agree with that.
I don't feel differently. If you see correctly I am saying exactly what you are feeling. I see it in your responses. Frankly, when this program grows, maybe to a level as EDC with thousands of members, then you will see the pyramids forming You should know from experience that it will happen. Whether the FTC does anything or not, it doesn't matter. The people caught up in the pyramid itself won't be very happy people. Unfortunately it's human nature to do something then assess the consequences later.
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 I ask that those with no personal experience or knowledge of this program not present their opinions, negative or positive, of the program as facts.
Lol very subtle Ina. You can ask, but I'm afraid that won't happen. What personal experience do you need within the program to know the program. I have personal experience with an identical program. I have R2R members emailing me for help. How much more personal do you want to get?
You did say 'or Knowledge'. I do have the knowledge. So by your standards I can still comment. Thanx for the approval!!!
Quoting: Power_Advisor27 However, I will maintain that RTR can be a great opportunity for customers and distributors alike. Operate ethically, do ample research, and there will be no problems.
How anyone operates is not the question! Never was. Please stop repeating that. That is just nonsense. How you do something change change anything. You could bend the truth as much as you want, it doesn't change the truth.
Ina, it's nice debating, however, it would be better if we could actually debate on the point that was the question, rather then padding the argument with matters that does not concern anyone or anything. Also, you outright, in your own words, have already agreed to every concern I have. Then please tell me, whats the point of this argument or questioning my intentions?
|
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#68 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 20:47
I do apologize to the those viewing this thread. We are engaging in alot of meaningless chatter, which was never the point.
I certainly hope that we can get back to the actually subject at question now. Lets hope we are capable of doing that.
|
TopMentor
Forums Member
Joined: 6 Oct 2006
Posts: 115
|
#69 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 21:02
Here's the bottom line.
You can make income with either EDC Gold or Roadmap to Riches... you must simply find someone who can help you achieve success and who is already successful with the program.
EDC Gold and Roadmap to Riches are very similar programs and very viable programs at that. You can have an opinion on them which may or may not be correct, but there is no need for any more bickering on here... this has gotten pretty ridiculous.
Wishing Everyone Success,
Brian McCoy
McCoy Marketing Group
__________________
|
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#70 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 21:52 · Edited by: jseses
Brian,
It's not always about money! Shouldn't ever be just about money. Should it??
The bickering is about what is a particular part of the program which does create risk for people. As an ethical person, I think one should always be prepared to be open and honest about it.
Or you could just concentrate on 'making an income'
Good Luck with that!
|
TopMentor
Forums Member
Joined: 6 Oct 2006
Posts: 115
|
#71 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 22:00 · Edited by: TopMentor
Jseses,
When did I ever say that it was all about money... be careful about putting words in other people's mouths before you write.
There's nothing unethical about Roadmap to Riches.
If you want to talk about unethical lets talk about the owners of EDC Gold (Craig and Mike) and how they were competing against their own distributors... talk about ethics.
Brian McCoy
McCoy Marketing Group
__________________
|
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#72 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 22:13
Here we go again. Brian do you read? Where did I say R2R was unethical?
As for making money, you disregarded what Ina and I are discussing and went straight to just the notion of making an income.
You called our discussion ridiculous. If you did read our postings then you would have realized that we were not talking about which program you can earn an income with. I wasn't even discussing EDC.
Personally I don't care if Craig and Mike promote themselves. It doesn't matter to me. They create as much hype as the HYPE creators in all these programs. So what difference is there between any of them??? Nothing.
What we are discussing Brian is a certain aspect of the program which can very easily be a problem for so many people. It is quite obvious. Even Ina herself has said that she can see it is possible. Now the possible solution to that is where we can maybe have some minor changes in that option whilst the business is still growing.
Any of it make sense?
This is not about any program. Never was. If you are not concerned about anything, that's fine. If you want to just fight about programs that fine aswell. I'm always up for a debate.
Just let me know beforehand on what topic you wish to debate about. What started off about one aspect has been forcefully turned into major battles about overall programs.
|
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#73 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 22:17 · Edited by: jseses
Look guys, this is the problem I have had with many of the people that call themselves mentors. Doesn't matter which program we discuss - whether it be R2R, EDC, P2W PWF etc. How can anyone be a good mentor to anyone if they themselves are not open to discuss aspects of the business itself?
If one cannot understand something themselves then there is not way they would be able to mentor someone else on the subject.
This happens all too often, and too many people are let down. It happens in all the programs.
Ina is right....be really careful who you choose your mentor to be. Often times its just a word.
|
Power_Advisor27
Forums Member
Joined: 29 May 2007
Posts: 62
|
#74 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 22:56 · Edited by: Power_Advisor27
I am through with this. Brian is right, it has gotten ridiculous and I've tried twice now to cut it off and leave things as they stand.
I agree with Brian. Both are viable programs that can help folks personally, professionally and financially. Finding a good mentor is key.
My opinions are my own, and until I find reason for them to change, they will not. I'm not opposed to the company changing this option or taking it away altogether. That will not affect my business. I have only ever stated that it's just an option. Whether problematic or not, it's just an option, and one that doesn't have to be taken.
Last, I am open to discussing any and all aspects of the business. I have been open and honest during this entire conversation. However, I'd like to discuss things from now on without opinions and conjectures (on my side or someone else's) being presented as facts. Because I don't agree with something does not mean I am not open to discussion, or that I'm not trying to see the truth, or that I don't understand something enough to mentor others. It just means I disagree. We are all entitled to our own opinions. Lets leave things at that.
-PA27
__________________
|
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#75 · Posted: 30 Jul 2007 23:45
Forget it, it's like apples and oranges. I'm talking about apples, and your talking about oranges. For some weird reason, we don't want to talk about the actual point.
So please tell me as a prospect. The $49.95 option to join, make that payment to the company, and then pass up 4 sales, how does that work??
1) Will you be selling just the biz opp or just the products? Or both?
2) What happens if you send a prospect to the site to signup, and they end up signing up in the $49,95 option? They signup under you, though they pay the company. So they will then pass up their 4 sales to you. Again, what will they be passing up? Just the $999 product sales, or the $49.95 option aswell, in which case the 4 pass-ups, do they come to you or not?
3) If the signups do go for the $49.95 option then whats the point of the sale as only the company makes the money.
|
Power_Advisor27
Forums Member
Joined: 29 May 2007
Posts: 62
|
#76 · Posted: 31 Jul 2007 00:50
If a member decides to join the affiliate-only option, they will pay either $49.95 a month or the lifetime use fee of $350. They are able to promote both the product package and the biz opp. The 4 sales being passed up would go to the sponsor that affiliate joined with. You may want to ask Brian, the CEO, why he set the number at 4 instead of something else. I have a feeling that it's because the sponsor didn't get the benefit of a product sale (that is just a theory). It will take 4 sales of the product package (not including the affiliate-only option) for the affiliate to become fully qualified and able to earn 100% commissions from each sale there on.
The point of the sale if someone joins the affiliate-only option will vary from person to person. Part is that they are able to promote the program, and may become customers (purchasing the product) themselves in the future. In the meantime, they can still provide the products to customers, as well as providing the biz opp to other entrepreneurs. The point is the opportunity to own a home business and earn from home.
-PA27
__________________
|
mrX
Forums Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 8
|
#77 · Posted: 31 Jul 2007 01:26 · Edited by: mrX
jseses,
You are an idiot in the purest sense of form.
Liberty League, a company that's been around for over 6 years, uses a similar model, so does Emerald Passport. What model am I referring to? the legal business model, NO PRODUCT PURCHASE REQUIRED...
And guess what? same concept, product purchase=X amount of pass up sales, no product purchase = MORe amount of pass up sales...
LL 1st product, beyond freedom, is $1500, and you must pass up 2 to qualify...OR no product purchase, a $50 annual app fee and pass up 5, YES 5 SALES!
LL had some issues with the AZ AG because of a few bad reps marketing practices, but guess what again? They're still in BUSINESS! If they were doing something illegal, do you think the State AG would of just sued and let them go back to their activities?
Same deal w/ R2R...NO PRODUCT PURCHASE REQUIRED!
Its ILLEGAL to do so!
EDC, P2W, PWF, Etc...that ALL force product purchase, that's illegal as you are not giving consumers the opportunity to promote it without the purchase. If you MAKE them buy the product, its obvious WHY they bought it, for the business. Hence people are being PAID to recruit, DESPITE the fact that they are getting products in return.
Not sure what kind of attorney you were, but perhaps you should look into a real, MLM attorney, that these kind of companies retain to evaluate them PRIOR to making your IGNORANT comments.
Onto the subject of PAS...
They were shut down by the SEC for selling unlicensed securities. PAS claimed to do ALL of the work, not 98%, not 90%, but 100% of the work, for a one time payment. They have NO identifiable product, so in essence, it looked like a person was buying NOTHING for $4k and told they had to do NOTHING to earn money with PAS. That sounds like an INVESTMENT correct? Well if you do not have a license to sell securities (INVESTMENTS), guess what...???...the SEC shuts you down.
SEC stands for Securities Exchange Commission.
That's what the specialize in.
So...
R2R never claims to do all of the work...
They have a product, if you see no value, that's your opinion...
NO Product purchase is necessary...
NOTHING like PAS...
Last but not least, $49.95 a month covers to hosting of the R2R affiliate website, lead capture pages, and auto-responder system, etc...the $350 covers the SAME thing, except its unlimited, no monthly payments, its a one time admin fee...
This is how R2R makes their money, as the rep keeps 100% of the product sale...
Same as EDC, a program YOU promote, but only an ignorant person would by such a hypocrite to work one opportunity and call the other one a pyramid...
Except there is one difference from R2R and EDC, EDC is not operating in a legal fashion as they make you purchase a product, R2R does not.
Ask an MLM attorney you idiot!
Last but not least, to the idiot who said the following, and it may have been you jmeses and some other idiot, if you pay $49.95 per month OR the one-time $350, it does NOT effect the amount of sales you must pass up...a product purchaser passes up 2, a non product purchases passes up 4,...
A little reading on your part would of distinguished that you moron.
PS, edc has the same $49.95/mo or $350 one time admin option, but i guess jsmeses is too much of an idiot to admit that his program has the same option
|
jseses
Forums Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 69
|
#78 · Posted: 31 Jul 2007 03:17
Quoting: mrX You are an idiot in the purest sense of form.
You want to act like a child, so be it! Another idiot who wants to have a go. I assume asking questions really is the no no in this industry now. As soon as you do everyone starts to get personal. Grow the Hell up! The least you could do is answer the right question, or atleast one I asked ya fruitloop.
He calls me ignorant yet he has no clue as to what I have been asking all along. One more thing Mrx You would have to be the most IGNORANT FOOL THERE IS. THIS ISN'T MLM!!!!!!! Your promoting this business and you don't even know what it is? Go to the R2R website have a look yourself. The company states it's not MLM.
Why are you all bringing in other stuff. It was a simple question that I asked. If you can't answer it then shut up. Don't call people names. Does it make you feel better Mrx?
Let me clarify just for you MRX again. The question! Something that Ina has tried to answer and come close too, you havent even come close to. Your ramblings above have nothing to do with what I have asked. All the crap you typed out were all part of Ina's comments not mine.
Nothing to do with How many pass - ups, nothing to do with products, nothing to do with how much you can pay annually, nothing to do with the FEDS, nothing to do with what you get for $49.95.
Now EDC and R2R are not EXACTLY the same MRX. I know it might be hard for you to believe. But it's true. EDC does not have the option of coming in as Ina puts it - an affiliate. Get it? So pyramids are not created. Hence, that is why I was asking about this particular aspect. But instead of answering that you all jumped onto other things.
Now, everyone is grown up here. So let me ask again. Maybe someone who isn't so up themselves might want to Answer. (This comment not directed at Ina and Brian ofcourse).
I no longer care about it, however, some others might have this question in their mind. Ina has also expressed her concern for what I am asking. The biz Opp is really the $999 deal. However, when someone goes to signup they have the $49,95 option and 4 pass-ups available to them. As MRX has said that it's obvious why everyone buys - for the bizz opp. Then the only people who would pay the $999 would be those who actually want to buy the products. YOUR WORDS MRX! So if MRX says everyone just wants the biz opp, then why would anyone pay the $999. Everyone would just be on the $49.95/monthly deal. What does that do MRX? Well your a very smart man, you figure it out.
Now what I was saying to Ina is that would it be possible if anyone who joins just the biz opp at $49.95, can all their prospects only be exposed to the $999 combined package so that it is the earning, and not just the biz opp option? The response, not in so many words was a "NO". Can it be changed? And if we use some basic common sense, I don't think many people who want just the biz opp to be exercised. Why? because the sponsor doesn't earn anything up front. If the sponsor turns out to be someone who doesn't know what he/she is doing marketing wise, then that poor person won't be able to help their member, and eventually not earn anything. It happens in this industry.
Now back to the Nutcase MRX - No one here is saying anything against R2R. No one is saying R2R is a pyramid Scheme. No one has any concern with paying the admin monthly or annual fee. I don't know how many times I have to say this. R2R the business is a legitimate business. No one is attacking it. So mate keep your undies on.
EDC, the $999 plan for R2R, P2W are all standard direct product sales. Nothing to do with MLM. How the hell is it illegal?
Quoting: mrX PS, edc has the same $49.95/mo or $350 one time admin option, but i guess jsmeses is too much of an idiot to admit that his program has the same option
Mrx you fool, that's the admin fee, exactly like R2R. It is not an affiliate only option.
Quoting: mrX Last but not least, to the idiot who said the following, and it may have been you jmeses and some other idiot, if you pay $49.95 per month OR the one-time $350, it does NOT effect the amount of sales you must pass up...a product purchaser passes up 2, a non product purchases passes up 4,... A little reading on your part would of distinguished that you moron.
Haha maybe you should be doing the reading yourself! I wasn't the one who said that YOU MORON.
MRX if your head wasn't stuck so deep up your **** you might just have been a decent bloke. You could have atleast done some reading and actually responded to what we were talking about.
Now I'm sick and tire of having to repeat the same damn simple question over and over and have you all responding to something else.
Ina, I think you came close to understanding what I am asking, if there is a way around it, then pm me, I am always looking to diversify. You already know I have a marketing system that works very well for me.
Take Care...
Remember - You have the power to manifest anything in your life.
|
TopMentor
Forums Member
Joined: 6 Oct 2006
Posts: 115
|
#79 · Posted: 31 Jul 2007 03:25 · Edited by: TopMentor
Jseses,
I don't think anyone has a problem with discussing things, but when you do it with such arrogance, all you are doing is creating enemies.
Brian
__________________
|
mrX
Forums Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 8
|
#80 · Posted: 31 Jul 2007 07:40
Hey jmeses, MLM attorneys STILL review direct sales companies and have them on retainer, hence they know the law...why dont you learn something you prick.
|
Page 4 of 5: «« 1 2 3 4 5 »»
