Anti-MLM Zealots – Part IX

Jon Taylor
By Len Clements © 2005

        I’m sure those of you who have been following this column over the last several months have a pretty clear picture of what I’m defining as an “Anti-MLM Zealot.” For the benefit of those readers new to this series, allow me to reiterate – an Anti-MLM Zealot isn’t someone who dislikes MLM. Even those who really, really dislike it are not necessarily worthy of the title. There are a lot of people who are “anti-MLM,” likely due to one failed experience, or more likely due to them borrowing the negative opinion of someone else and making it their own, without doing any of their own actual research. No, the Anti-MLM Zealot is someone who is borderline obsessive about exposing their negative opinions to others – even those who never asked for it. They are someone who spends hundreds, if not thousands of hours of their lives searching for evidence to rationalize their extremist viewpoint. Then they compile and present their observations, theories and opinions to anyone who will pay attention to them in an effort to rid the nation of all things MLM. The fact that there are thousands of good, honest people supporting their families from their MLM incomes, who’s livelihoods would be ruined if their MLM prohibition agenda were successful, is rationalized away by simply denying they exist. Or, creating a dichotomy where all those who do succeed are the “perpetrators.” The rest are “victims.”
        There are really only four bona fide Anti-MLM Zealots out there trying to wreck your business, and for many of you, your livelihood. Arguably the most read is Dean Van Druff, the most prominent is Robert FitzPatrick, and the most currently active is Ruth Carter. All have been discussed in previous editions of this series. But by far the one who has churned out the greatest abundance of anti-MLM propaganda is Mr. Jon Taylor, co-founder of the Consumer Awareness Institute, who’s work we barely scratched the surface on in last month’s edition. Let’s dig deeper.

Tall Taxing Tails

        In an effort to bolster his case that very few network marketers make any money, Taylor relates the testimony of 33 tax preparers and CPAs he interviewed, not one of which could remember an MLM distributor client who made a “substantial” profit. The only challenge in rebutting this hogwash is deciding where to begin! Let’s start with the fact that a document in which someone attempts to report the least amount of income legally possible isn’t exactly the best tool to judge how potentially lucrative a profession may be (not to mention all those returns these preparers saw where the client was overly aggressive in reporting business expenses, which I’m sure were more than a few). Putting that obvious point aside, consider this: According to Taylor, these 33 tax preparers had an aggregate total of about 14,400 clients in 2002 (the year Taylor did this “study”) and had worked on over 300,000 tax returns in their careers. Yet, amazingly, not only did they remember the “several hundred” that were MLM distributors, but even recalled the amount of their profits and losses! One particular preparer from H&R Block claimed to have prepared over 10,000 returns over 32 years, and not only recalled that all of his MLM clients lost money, he could even cite the average amount they lost! Pretty incredible, isn’t it? And what, exactly, is a “substantial” profit? And how would they know who was a network marketer? I’ve filed over a dozen 1040s since going full time in this business, and don’t recall once being asked to define my occupation. What’s even more difficult to accept is Taylor’s claim that he then called other tax preparers, accountants, financial planners, bankers, and insurance underwriters, (insurance underwriters?) who all allegedly “relayed similar feedback.” What does this mean? Who? Where? When? With such damning evidence you’d think Taylor would have spent some time on this point, and provided specifics. Yet he simply glosses over it in all of three sentences. And get this: Taylor decided to call 33 more tax preparers in Utah county and found that they could recall 38 clients who had made “large profits from a variety of MLMs” in the last year alone, and about 185 throughout there careers. Some, Taylor reports, “were reaping checks ranging from tens of thousands of dollars a month to close to $1 million a month!” How does he explain this? Well, Utah county, you see, has a high concentration of MLM corporate offices, and those most likely to be at the top of the pyramid would reside near their company’s home office. I’m not kidding. That’s his explanation. Of course, he provides no information as to the level these mega-earners are on, nor does he really have even the slightest clue. He also does not take into consideration that those top earners who do live near the home office (of the very few who actually do) often times moved there after they became successful. The reality is, his first survey was of tax preparers in what he acknowledges are “sparsely populated” areas of Utah, and the second survey was in a densely populated area, and common sense would suggest (and my own MarketWave research has proven) that areas of higher population density are more conducive to successful network marketing. Within the fine print footnotes Taylor mentions that he also called 106 tax preparers from other parts of Utah as well as Michigan, Idaho and California. Curiously, his findings from these surveys are not presented. If it supported his case, you can bet he would have presented them.
        Taylor concludes this section by asking for the reader’s assistance in gathering “objective” information about MLM, but then declares he is “not interested in anecdotal material.” I see. So, if a tax preparer provides anecdotal material that is negative towards MLM, based entirely on memory, he’ll accept it. If a practicing network marketer provides anecdotal material that’s positive towards MLM, it’s unacceptable. Yeah, that’s objective.

Odd Odds

        In yet another example of Taylor’s gross lack of objectivity, he states, “It is interesting to compare the odds of success of MLM schemes with legalized gambling in Nevada. It appears that on average one could do better at most any of the gaming tables or slot machines…”. Once again we have an anti-MLM zealot (previously it was Robert FitzPatrick) suggesting our successes are somehow a game of chance. It’s interesting to note how one’s “odds” of success in MLM seem to increase the longer they commit to it, the more they study it, and the harder they work at it. Taylor provides charts, graphs and numerous footnotes to create the illusion of substance to his findings. But when held up the light it reveals itself to be nothing more than gussied up garbage math. In one case he provides a chart showing the odds of turning a profit in a “no product” pyramid scheme, a single bet on a roulette wheel, and an MLM opportunity. He claims the percent who lose money in a classic pyramid scheme is 90.4% (9.6% make a profit), but 99.95% lose money in MLM. If we follow the asterisks to the fine print, we discover that his 9.6% figure came from a news report of a scheme called “The Original Dinner Party” and Robert FitzPatrick’s experience with the “Airplane Game” over 20 years ago. That’s it. Another asterisk leads us to where Taylor arrived at his so often cited “99.9% fail” figure. He picked six MLM companies (out of thousands) and analyzed “internal reports” along with SEC and FTC filings, even though only one is a public company in the United States. He also factored in “reports from ex-distributors.” But apparently his findings were still not to his liking, so he had to “correct” what he refers to as “deceptive data.” First, he didn’t care for the way MLM companies only report the earnings of those who are “active.” Adding back in all those who made no money because they didn’t do anything to earn it (signed up, bought a kit, and quit) would certainly increase his “failure” percentage. Next, he had to factor in each distributor’s average annual expenses. How he arrived at this number is not stated, nor does he even reveal the number he chose to use – because there’s only one way he could have arrived at it. He made it up. For someone who demands such statistical facts and verification from us, it’s both ironic and hypocritical of Taylor to pull flimsy, baseless, claims such as this out of thin air. His “99.9% fail” mantra is based on nothing more than a grossly bias guess.
        At one point in his marathon diatribe, he suggests a prospect ask the spouse of his or her potential sponsor “what problems the family has experienced due to MLM participation?” Notice, he doesn’t suggest you ask “Have there been any problems?” He’s suggesting you just assume there have been. And what does your sponsor’s family life have to do with yours? Taylor doesn’t say.
        Taylor’s ignorance as to basic MLM law is most glaring in his definition of the proverbial “Seventy Percent Rule.” This is a rule that was derived from, and clearly defined by, the FTC vs. Amway decision in 1979. It is, and has always been, a rule that forbids the purchase of more inventory until at least 70% of all previous goods have been sold or consumed (designed to prevent front loading and stock piling). According to Taylor, this rule demands “distributors must derive at least 70% of their income from retail sales to non-distributors.” He’s wrong.
        Among myriad other examples of Taylor’s asserted effort to fold, spindle and mutilate the facts to conform to his argument, he charges that “MLM apologists typically respond that a pyramid structure is common in all large businesses and their organization.” And yes, we do that. But then he states, “I maintain that many significant features (symptoms) separate a pyramid scheme syndrome from normal business organizations. To suggest that ‘all organizations are really pyramid schemes’ is naive.” Yes, it would be, except that’s not what we say, and Taylor just confirmed it! The common, if now almost cliche’ assertion we (us “apologists”) make is, as Taylor just described, that the “structure” is shaped like a pyramid, nothing more. So, how did we go from an innocent discussion of the shape of a company’s hierarchy chart to us claiming the “symptoms” or “syndrome” of a pyramid scheme are in common with conventional businesses? The bridge between the two totally separate concepts is an invention all Taylor’s.
        Taylor’s illogic and shallow reasoning is never more evident than in his proposed solution to the challenge of local market saturation. Taylor suggests that by MLM companies not applying territorial restrictions (i.e. limiting the number of distributors per area), it is common for local markets to become saturated with reps from the same company, making it extremely difficult to enroll more sales reps in that area (such local market conditions are actually extremely rare). His solution? Restrict the number of reps that can enroll per area. So, his solution for a condition where recruiting more distributors becomes very difficult, is to make it impossible to recruit more distributors in that area! Can you imagine having a neighbor down the street who becomes interested in your business, but your company’s policies forbid you from enrolling them? Taylor’s proposed cure to this local saturation challenge would actually make it far worse, and cause it occur earlier!

Selective Memory

        In his research, Jon Taylor interviewed me and read my book “Inside Network Marketing.” The only evidence of this anywhere in his material is his recounting of a question I have on my MLM survey ( related to income goals. Yet, in spite of my crystal clear description of the question itself, and a verbal discussion on the phone where I reiterated my findings, his portrayal (betrayal) of this survey is so self serving and skewed as to suggest deliberate deception. My survey question simply asked at what income level one would consider themselves “successful?” Not their dream goal (of course we all want to be millionaires), but their “primary” income goal, and anything above that is icing on the cake. Eighty-six percent said they would consider themselves successful if they only made enough to quit their job and make a “comfortable living,” which they quantified, on average, as being $5,988 per month. According to Taylor, I asked what their “expectations of success” were and that 86% said they “expected a full-time income to result from their (MLM) participation.” My survey also found that 6% said they would not feel “successful” unless they made at least $84,000 per month (one million per year). This means, as I state in the survey, my book, and in every other situation when I’ve ever recited these findings, that clearly 6% misunderstood the question on the survey (obviously, they would likely consider themselves successful if they made only $10,000 per month, or surely $50,000). But Taylor calls it “remarkable” that 6% expected to make $86,000 per month, then asks “What do such expectations tell us about the more aggressive MLM promoters?” A better question is, what does Taylor’s portrayal of my findings tell us about the more aggressive MLM demoters?
        Taylor claims he also interviewed a producer of “multiple vitamin” products that had several MLM clients. He alleges the conveniently unnamed producer told him that he sells the vitamin supplements to these MLM companies at a cost of $3 to $4 a bottle, and each of the MLMs sell to their reps for a wholesale price of about $50 a bottle. He goes on to claim that this producer suggested to these MLMs that they could offer a superior product with higher quality ingredients at a cost of $7 a bottle, and all declined because there was “not enough margin.” First of all, I’ve not only been a full time participant in this business for over 14 years, I’ve studied it, and it’s companies, extensively that entire time. I’ve never seen a “multiple vitamin” product wholesale for fifty bucks. Not one, ever. Besides that, consider the absurdity of an MLM company selling something that cost them $3 for $50 – a $47 margin, but then deciding they can’t afford a better $7 product because a $43 margin wouldn’t be enough (that’s still over a seven hundred times mark up). Or that a manufacturing company would tattle on their clients like this and risk losing literally millions of dollars in business. Kind of hard to believe, isn’t it? It would be great if we were able to verify Taylor’s sensationalistic anecdotes, but unfortunately he does not place the same level of substantiation and verification on his own claims as he demands we do on ours.
        There are pyramid schemes, and there are legitimate, legal network marketing businesses. There are numerous laws and countless legal precedence spanning several decades supporting this delineation. This dichotomy has been defined and refined by literally hundreds of judges, attorneys, law enforcement personnel, the FTC, Attorney Generals, district attorneys, and various other local, state and federal regulators, as well as the Better Business Bureau and Chamber of Commerce. We are now asked to believe that they are all wrong, and Jon Taylor is right. At one point in Taylor’s manifesto he rhetorically states, “While researching this subject, I often asked myself why is MLM so pyramidal in concept, motivation, and effects, and yet has been so successful in avoiding the label of ‘pyramid scheme.'” In researching Taylor’s position, I often asked myself why he so utterly fails to accept, or even acknowledge the simplest, most obvious answer – because they’re not.

        The last two installments of this series will deal with general anti-MLM concepts and accusations, such as market saturation, exploiting relationships, and high distributor failure rates, among others. I’m done with rebutting specific anti-MLM zealots – unless there’s another one you think deserves the scrutiny. If so, please let me know.
        For the record, all those individuals discussed in this column were invited to provide supporting data to defend their expertise of this subject. Jon Taylor did provide a short, general outline of his research, but refused to provide any financial data to support his claim of past “success” in MLM. Dean Van Druff’s response was mostly a rude, childish attack on my intelligence. Ruth Carter referred only to her personal experience in Amway several years ago. Robert FitzPatrick never responded at all.

Anti-MLM Zealots –Part VIII

Jon Taylor
By Len Clements © 2005

        The Anti-MLM Zealot is a rare breed. Oh sure, there are a lot of people who may be “anti-MLM,” likely due to one failed experience, or more likely due to them adopting the negative opinion of someone else as their own, without doing any of their own actual investigation. Then there are those who dismiss our industry as somehow shady due to nothing more than the common geometric misconception that our sales organizations form a pyramid shape (ironically, MLM downlines are the only form of business structure that does not form a pyramid). But the Anti-MLM Zealot is someone who is passionate about exposing their negative beliefs and opinions to others – even to the point of obsession. Someone who spends hundreds, if not thousands of hours of their lives searching for evidence to support their cause, creating prolific amounts of anti-MLM material, and contacting media outlets and state and federal regulators in a vain attempt to get someone to pay attention to them.
        Someone like Jon Taylor, PhD.
        There are really only four bona fide Anti-MLM Zealots out there trying to wreck our business, and for many of us, our livelihoods. Arguably the most read is Dean Van Druff. The most prominent, at least at the moment, is Robert FitzPatrick. The most currently active, at least at the moment, is Ruth Carter. All have been discussed in previous editions of this series. But by far the one who has churned out the greatest abundance of anti-MLM material is Jon Taylor.

Product Based Pyramid Schemes – Jon Taylor

        The most prolific of the anti-MLM group is Jon Taylor, Ph.D., a graduate of Brigham Young University with an MBA is Applied Psychology, who has over 30 years of sales, marketing, and entrepreneurial experience.
        Mr. Taylor has spent several years cranking out anti-MLM material, including a 40,000 word manifesto titled “Product Based Pyramid Schemes.” Its essentially a 5,000 word thesis with the same points repeated over and over. The basis for Taylor’s argument is that he was, in fact, a “successful” distributor who one day had a lucid moment and decided to turn hostile witness. He came to believe that no one else after him could become successful since they were now at the “bottom” of the pyramid
        Taylor claims he spent two years researching MLM, first as a distributor determined to give it “every chance of proving what it claims to be,” then as a researcher determined to find out if everyone had as much trouble as he did making “large amounts of money that were promised to the diligent.” First, I’m not sure if a less-then-two-year participation in one particular MLM company (out of hundreds) could be classified as “diligent” nor provides an entire industry “every chance” to prove itself. It seems as if Taylor feels that if it didn’t work for him, in this one company, there must be something wrong with the entire industry. Secondly, I thought Taylor was a “successful” distributor? Indeed, he claims to have been among the “top 1% of the distributors.” What’s more, the company he was in was Nu Skin. If he genuinely achieved the success he claims to have achieved, in less than two years, with one of the industry’s most challenging break-away compensation plans, in an already huge company like Nu Skin, his own experience would seem to completely contradict his own position. The fact that it was unexpectedly “tough” only goes to discredit the manner in which he was presented the opportunity, and his own investigative skills. Surely he does not believe that the way one group of distributors for one company pitched him is indicative of how all seven million of us operate. Does he?
        In detailing his MLM experience he describes how he “jumped in with both feet” and dropped all of his other business interests. He then later discusses how he “had financially fallen behind to a significant degree” due mainly to “all the product (he) purchased to maintain artificial qualifying standards (quotas) for ever higher bonus and commission levels.” Also due to “not having any alternative income during that time.” Now he seems to be contradicting his own rebuttal to those who claim his MLM attacks are due to “sour grapes.” He responds to such claims by claiming he was “not a failure” and “rose to the top 1% of all those who tried this program.” Yet, literally on the same page of his report he claims he “came away empty.” The only way to logically reconcile his seemingly contradictory story is to assume he earned a substantial gross income, but due to his excessive expenses earned no net income. This begs the question, who held a gun to Taylor’s head and forced him to quit his other businesses and buy a garage full of products to artificially meet his quotas? Indeed, these were conscious, voluntary decisions made entirely by Taylor. Nu Skin’s “group volume” requirements were to be produced by Taylor – and his group! By buying into the “Executive” position out of his own pocket he allowed himself to earn higher override percentages on his downline, that’s true. But if his downline were large enough to warrant such an action then most or all of the group volume quota would have been met by his group’s volume. Otherwise, his upfront purchases would have only earned him higher commissions on a downline that didn’t exist yet! How ever you look at it, these were simply poor business decisions, the responsibility for which were entirely Taylor’s. What’s more, MLM income is residual and not dependent on those expenses continuing (other than his personal volume quota which was $100 at the time). Most successful distributors plow much of their income back into their business the first few years, then back off and live off their handsome residual overrides. That’s just how MLM works. For that matter, that’s how business works. The challenge Taylor describes related to his own MLM experience have nothing whatsoever to do with the MLM model or it’s legality and everything to do with his own misguided expectations and those individuals who misguided him. In other words, his problem is really with the packaging, not the content.
        Yes, many Nu Skin reps back then (very early 90’s) were pushing front loads and stockpiling of product, and the income hype was rampant. In fact, that’s the reason I quit Nu Skin back then! Such actions are indefensible. However, Taylor states that “had a government investigator… gone undercover as a MLM distributor… he/she would have probably come up with similar conclusions.” But – they did! Nu Skin was hit hard by various state and federal authorities soon after Taylor and I departed. The catalyst for these actions were the very things he attacks. This was a very high profile case resulting in a lot of media play. Did he completely miss it?
        For the record, Nu Skin has settled all their legal issues from back then and have since reformed many of their marketing practices.
        In an effort to prove his contention that very few people ever succeeded in MLM, Taylor sent a survey to 60 prominent MLM companies requesting detailed pay out data (such as the monthly earnings of the “top 1%” of distributors). Today he presents the fact that not a single company responded to his survey as supporting evidence of his position, rather than due to any lack of credibility he had with these companies, or the fact that his survey was grossly flawed in that it did not take into consideration something as simple as the size and age of the company.
        In Taylor’s “Twelve Tests for Evaluating A Network Marketing Opportunity” he stumbled on the very first sentence where he refers to “Gifting Network” among a list of network marketing aliases (such as MLM, Consumer Direct Marketing, etc.). I believe this mistake is due more to his obvious bias towards the negative rather than due to a lack of research on his part. Even the most cursory investigation would have revealed that gifting clubs are patently illegal, cash based operations (there are no products involved) far removed from legal MLM programs, and the terms have never been synonymous within the industry, or at any regulatory level.
        One of his “evaluation test” questions is “are numerous levels of distributors allowed?” Of course, there are numerous (if we assume that to be more than five) levels in virtually every MLM company. The idea that more than two or three levels of pay out constitutes an illegal pyramid is an invention all Taylor’s. No legal authority in U.S. history has ever held the same opinion.
        Yet another example of surprisingly shallow thinking on Taylor’s part (who is otherwise clearly a bright guy) is the statement that “in some programs, quitting merely enhances the income of your upline – because income ‘rolls up’ to those above you.” Okay, let’s think about this. If someone were making any significant amount of income, why would they quit? If they were making very little income, then very little would roll up. As most experienced MLMers would attest, “roll up” is a very overrated income generator. The vast majority of upline reps would benefit more by the commission they earn on their downline’s personal purchases and sales than they would from roll up of their income if they quit. To suggest otherwise demonstrates a gross ignorance of basic MLM theory.
        In yet another example of loaded questions he advises you to ask (there are many throughout Taylor’s work) he suggests prospects ask distributors who have only been working the business two or three months if they are turning a “respectable profit,” then goes on to say that if they are not, then they are only “fattening the pockets of their upline.” Taylor has a penchant for “set up” lines like this. Very few reps would be making a profit of any amount after just two or three months. Indeed, to suggest significant profits can be earned in that short a time is the very type of hypey, over-stated promise that Taylor warns against! Furthermore, typical income progressions, based on real-world analysis of those who’ve worked a good opportunity long enough to create one, show a very slow growth pattern in the early stages followed by more rapid growth months later. Inevitably, the rate of increase will begin to increase, creating a “momentum” phase within an individuals own organization. A typical income progression chart would not show a 45º diagonal line, but one that looked more like the path of an airplane taking off from a starting point at the beginning of the runway. This income acceleration may not occur until the second, or even third year. The fact that most distributors choose to drop out long before then is a failure of their own tenacity and ignorance of how incomes truly progress in MLM – not a failure of the MLM concept. So, even after this magnitude of research performed by Taylor, are we to believe he still doesn’t understand a typical, common MLM income progression?
        Another “set up” question he suggests you ask of your MLM company is for net pay out data, after subtracting product purchases, for all distributors who ever signed up! Yes, even those who quit many yeas ago. Is he really so naive to think that such data exists, or even if it does, that any company would provide it? Of course he isn’t. He already knows they won’t, or can’t provide it (based on his own attempts). So why would he suggest you all try to acquire the same information? Besides, can you imagine the accounting nightmare, not to mention the data storage requirements, for major, decades old companies like Amway, Mary Kay, Shaklee or Herbalife to be able to accommodate such a request. Of course they are not going to provide it – and Taylor knew they wouldn’t when he wrote his “Income Disclosure Test.” It’s just another set up.
        We’re set up again by Taylor’s suggested “acid test” as to potential profitability of an MLM distributor. He suggests you ask your sponsor to show you his/her last year’s tax return. Again, this is wrong on multiple levels. First, a tax return is a document designed to show the least possible amount of income legally allowed, which factors in a wide variety of common expenses that may still have been incurred but otherwise not be deductible (if they hadn’t been running a legitimate MLM business). Also, how does the success of your prospective sponsor in any way effect your potential success? So what if that one individual had a bad year last year? Does that mean you will? Furthermore, asking someone how much money they make is a rude, very personal question to ask, isn’t it? It certainly is in every other profession (its also hypocritical for Taylor to suggest it considering he refused to provide me with any evidence of his own alleged “success” in MLM). And finally, to abide the question can be illegal! Using income claims, especially by showing checks, 1099s, or 1040’s, as an inducement to join an MLM program is considered one of the most taboo practices by the MLM industry at large. There is much legal precedent that Taylor’s own proposed question could be an act of entrapment. In fact, this very issue was a major part of state and federal actions against Nu Skin back in the early 90’s – the very MLM company Taylor claims to have once been so closely associated with!
        Taylor suggest you get a copy of your sponsor’s genealogy, including upline, giving no regard to the fact that this is tantamount to asking for a company’s client list (which, of course, would be a foolish request), or that genealogies that include uplines (other than the sponsor) are rare. What’s even worse is that he suggests you get this information for the purpose of polling reps at various levels to see how many of them have achieved “time freedom” with no regard to the fact that, as I described earlier, one’s time investment in their MLM business typically takes on a bell shaped curve spread over several years. It would seem obvious that one would be able to quit their job and comfortably live off “residual income” only after months or years of time consuming work. Once again, either Taylor is genuinely oblivious to what is common knowledge to any experienced MLMer, or he’s fully aware of this basic, fundamental fact of MLM life and he simply disregards it in a biased attempt to manufacture a negative argument.
        Taylor continues his string of trap questions by proposing that prospects should check to see if the company offers training, audio and video tapes, and various other sales aids for free, or are you expected to pay for them as another profit center for the company and upline? Are we to believe that he never thought of a third possibility – that the tools are sold at or below cost? Of course, Taylor surely knows that every MLM company charges something for their training and sales tools, so why suggest you even ask? Furthermore, in the vast majority of MLM programs operating today, these tools are indeed sold at or very near cost. To mark up videos and audios significantly would mean the company itself would be making money by recruiting (since only recruits would buy sales aids), which would be a huge red flag to regulators. Companies are just as forbidden from making money from recruitment as distributors are. Also, no legal MLM company pays commissions on training and sales aids (sure, a few do pay on training, but notice I said “legal” MLM companies, which are the vast majority, and which do not pay on training). Furthermore, all but a very few, albeit very large, MLM companies don’t even allow their reps to produce and resell training and sales tools at cost, let alone at a profit.

        I’ve only just begun to pick apart the illogic and ignorance of Taylor’s anti-MLM material. In coming issues I’ll show you his evidence that playing the slots in Vegas provides a greater financial return than an MLM opportunity. He’s even got a graph to prove it! And wait to you hear his solution to the non-existent “saturation” dilemma. And you’ll find no greater example of “selective memory” than the interview he did of a pro-MLM authority in his alleged attempt to get “all sides” of the issue before presenting his findings. He interviewed me. His portrayal (betrayal?) of my information is so self serving and skewed as to suggest deliberate deception. See ya’ next month!