The Binary & The Law: A Guilt by Association

By Len Clements © 2004

Every type of compensation plan, be it binary, matrix, unilevel, breakaway, Australian or Venusian, has it’s advantages and disadvantages. Each provides it’s own unique income generating benefits, and each has it’s own unique challenges. There is no perfect compensation plan. The binary plan is no exception. Having said that, one of the challenges specific to the binary is NOT it’s legality, in spite of the rampant rumors and prognostications that pervade the industry (mostly via internet message boards – now there’s a reliable source of information!).

Personally, I have no great affinity towards the binary plan itself. However, I loathe the mudslinging competitor who unjustly maligns the plan with claims of imminent regulatory action, even going so far as to suggest a pending federal action to outlaw the plan all together. Yet another example of the rise in scare-tactic recruiting that has been increasing since the early-90’s.

The argument goes that since so many state and federal attacks on MLM companies the last several years (which, overall, have been few and far between) have been on companies employing a binary-type compensation plan, clearly there must be something legally suspect with this type of plan. After all, look at the hit list: Destiny Telecom, Tele-Sales, Inc., Jewelway, Gold Unlimited, The Tax People, SkyBiz, and the list goes on. The first regulatory attack on a company using a binary plan was on the very first company that ever popularized the binary plan American Gold Eagle. This company was founded by the recognized creator of the plan, David Crowe, who latter (after AGE was closed down) started the aforementioned Gold Unlimited and who was eventually indicted on eleven federal counts, sentenced to prison, fled prosecution, and was featured on the TV program America’s Most Wanted (resulting in his eventual capture). Granted, this doesn’t bode well for the binary. But then, every accused would look guilty if we only heard from the prosecution. Let’s hear from the defense…

In each and every case in which a company using a binary plan suffered a regulatory attack, the legality of the compensation plan was NOT the target. It was what these companies were DOING with the plan that caused their legal grief, and what they were doing is the same thing that EVERY legally scrutinized MLM company in history was doing, regardless of the type of plan they used. That being, they were selling something that had no significant value beyond qualifying in the compensation plan.

In a typical binary plan distributors receive multiple “business centers” with which they may build a downline sales organization below. The more positions you “activate” the greater the potential income. In too many cases, the result was large up front purchases of products not to consume or resell, but rather to acquire multiple positions to build under. The more you buy, the more centers you activated. Therefore, you were essentially being paid for recruiting since only new recruits would make such purchases. Thus, the operation was deemed an illegal pyramid scheme (legal network marketing companies only pay commissions on retailable products that people would buy based on the actual value of the products in other words, they’d have bought them even if there were no income opportunity associated with the purchase). However, such token purchases primarily for income qualification purposes exists with every type of compensation plan. Whether you buy $5,000 worth of widgets to qualify for the Universal Master rank, or $100 worth just to meet your monthly quota, if no one is buying other than reps, and even they are, for the most part, only buying because they have to to get paid, you are equally vulnerable even if your company doesn’t use a binary plan.

State and federal regulators don’t just swoop in and permanently close down such companies. They issue injunctions or restraining orders that temporarily limit or cease operations while the company and the agency, and eventually the courts if either side chooses to take it that far, decide the eventual fate of the operation. Usually the company makes rapid and significant changes to the program in an effort to satisfy the authorities so they may resume business as usual. Historically, with rare exception, MLM companies in this situation will quickly agree to any and all revisions demanded of them, else their national sales organization quickly resembles a Road Runner cartoon a big cloud of dust with the word “POOF” in the middle of it. In fact, every company using a binary plan that was attacked was given this opportunity at some point. In fact, several companies eventually satisfied the attacking agency and were allowed to resume business. And, in fact, when all demanded changes were agreed to and the new, revised program was introduced to the field every single one of these companies STILL HAD A BINARY COMPENSATION PLAN! Clearly, the type of compensation plan they used was not the issue.

In fact, many MLM companies that have been legally attacked, or even shut down, have had perfectly legitimate products of value and a legally sound compensation plan, at least in it’s design. What many distributors today fail to understand is that regulators don’t simply ask “Is there a product or not?” or “Do people get paid for recruiting?” They watch how distributors actually use the products, and how they promote the compensation plan. In other words, they don’t take action based on what the program is designed to do, they take action based on what distributors are actually doing with it. A baseball bat is designed for the safe, innocuous task of hitting a baseball, but it can also be used as a weapon. Same with some MLM programs. They may be fine in their construct, but can cause great harm if abused.

Companies today that employ binary or binary-hybrid plans, such as Usana, Synergy, Longevity Network, Mannatech and Market America, are all considered safe, legal companies and, over a combined history of almost 30 years, have had no legal challenges to their manner of compensation. Yet, the binary aspect of these plans vary little from that used by Jewelway and Gold Unlimited. The difference is that these latter companies either sold products that had no real value to anyone (such as Destiny’s 55 per minute prepaid calling cards), or had quality products which were still only purchased primarily to qualify for a higher paying position in the plan, a la Jewelway. I once knew someone who shamefully confessed they had purchased over $35,000 worth of fine jewelry when they joined Jewelway. No, it wasn’t Mr. T or Deion Sanders. It was simply someone who was convinced by their less reputable (or legally ignorant) upline that it would financially behoove them to occupy 30 positions in the hierarchy. The more reputable companies mentioned above have products that are routinely purchased by folks who have no interest in an “income opportunity,” they just like the products. Furthermore, most of their distributors buy because they actually WANT the products, not just to meet a quota. Another vitally important difference in the design of the compensation system, or more specifically the qualifications, is that in legally sound binary companies there is no facility to purchase massive inventory loads to qualify more positions. Three’s the limit (more positions can be earned, but no additional products need be purchased to qualify them).

Viva la differance!

The legality of a network marketing opportunity has little to do with the design of their compensation structure and everything to do with the motivation for buying their products. History has shown us, over and over, that this applies to companies that use a binary plan as well.

The ‘Duplicatable System’ Myth

By Len Clements © 2000

The “system” is just so simple. You say the same thing, send the same stuff, and get the same enthusiastic response, every time. Your downline builds smoothly, swiftly, and effortlessly, because the “system” is so effective, and easily duplicatable.

In a perfect world such a system may work. Clearly, this is not a perfect world.

I’ve found there are six common challenges to many of the “systems” that are in place today.

First, many are designed more to sell tapes, tools, training or lead generation services than to build downlines. Certainly there is a value to these types of products and services, to an extent. I’m by no means anti-tools or anti-training, and I’m certainly not opposed to good lead generation sources. I’m talking about uplines who design systems as for-profit businesses. I think the system should be a break-even venture at best. The idea should be to make it as accessible (affordable) to as many people as possible, for as long as possible, with the reward coming from the resulting increase in downline sales volume.

I’ve also found many situations where uplines were not using, nor had they ever used, the very system they were pitching to their downline. Often times this would involve the promotion of massive tape or postcard mailings, or cold calling “opportunity seeker” lists. It’s no skin of the back of the upline “leader” if his downline were to waste valuable funds on these recruiting methods. Yes, tapes and postcards worked well several years ago for some. That was before the US Postal System became saturated with tapes and postcards as others attempted to duplicate their success. Such systems are based on the “numbers game” theory. Take enough shots and you’re bound to hit the target occasionally. However, imagine you’re standing in the end zone of a football field and there’s an archery target positioned at the other end of the field – and you have to shoot with your eyes closed. Now imagine it costs you a buck an arrow. 

Many systems are given the responsibility for huge, fast growth in a leader’s organization. They’ll claim to have made $10,000 their first month, thanks to their “revolutionary” and of course “duplicatable” system. The income claim may even be true (although still legally suspect, but that’s another article). But rarely, if ever, is the “duplicatable” part. What’s typically missing from the story is that the person had a substantial downline in a previous company and moved a chunk of it over. Understand, I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with this, as long as there’s full disclosure. If the upline were to openly admit that he made so much so soon because he moved a group over, no problem. Certainly what he did to build that original group may have been honest and duplicatable, but the SPEED and EXTENT to which his downline grew in the new company was absolutely not the responsibility of any system, nor was it duplicatable.

Still others tout the success of their system in generating faster, larger incomes when much, if not most, of that income came from a deal they cut with corporate. Several years ago, while I and a few of my friends were shopping around for a company to join, we were offered a “front line” position to one company and “double the compensation.” Every percentage in the plan double it. Yet another offered us a front line position and a gift of almost 2,000 distributors (we eventually joined a company that made no deal). While not rampant, this practice of deal making is certainly not rare. Frankly, I’m not sure I even have a problem with it as long as, again, there is full disclosure. I suppose we all have the right to make the best deal the market will allow for our services, just like any other industry as long as you don’t promote your success as being duplicatable, or based on any recruiting or sales system.

Another challenge I find with many systems in use today is that they are based on theory rather than real world experience. They’re based on how we WISH things would happen rather than what really happens. For example, the 50 line phone script where you call your friend Bob and ask him if he’d be interested in hearing about an “exciting, ground floor opportunity” or an “revolutionary new product” and Bob, according to the script, enthusiastically responds, “Sure! Tell me about it.” As anyone with even a week of practical experience has learned, Bob rarely responds with such unquestioning acceptance of your offer thus making the next 49 lines of the script useless. Or, there are systems where we are suppose to send information packages to folks that include lengthy books, or other elaborate, relatively expensive materials, as if even a few of our prospects are actually going to devour it all before we follow up with them in a few days. Then there’s the fantasy land internet recruiting systems where we, allegedly, are going to recruit massive numbers of serious, committed, hard working professional networkers based solely on some enticing verbiage and a few pretty pictures.

Finally, in the vast majority of “duplicatable systems” I’ve seen (and I’ve seen many over the last decade of full time research and practice) there’s simply no aiming at the target. Like the not-so-exaggerated example I gave to open this article, we are suppose to generate leads from the same sources, say the same scripted pitch when we contact them, then send the same information package in the mail, or direct them to the same internet site or canned phone presentation. Then, when following up, we are programmed, almost robotically, to respond to various common questions and concerns with the same pat, even cliche’ answers. Indeed, this very aspect of the system is what makes it so “duplicatable.” Yet, one of the most basic, fundamental tenants of sales, at least in every other industry, is to “target” your prospect. Learn a little about therm. Find out what there issues are their wants and needs and address them individually. Such cookie cutter systems fail in this, utterly. Yes, it’s true that opening your eyes and aiming at the target does take a little more work, and it is a skill that does improve with experience, but practicing it will cause you to hit the target ten times more often! 

Let’s dwell on this final point for a moment. Here’s a simple, no brainer, qualifying question that we teach as part of our system: “Have you ever been involved in network marketing before?” Since there are only three possible responses to this question, and an obvious follow up question, there is no need for a script here. Your prospect must answer with either: A) No I’ve never been involved, or; B) Yes, I was once but not anymore, or; C) Yes, I am right now. The follow up to each would be: A) What got you interested now?, or; B) What happened with your last experience?, or; C) Why are you looking for another opportunity? Now you simply sit back, take notes, and listen. Capture sound bites that reveal what the particular issues, concerns, fears, and desires are for this specific prospect. If they answer with B and you discover their previous company was shut down by legal authorities, or simply went bankrupt, rather than giving a predesigned speech about your “highest paying plan” or “life changing products” you might want to focus a little more on company stability. If they answer with C and say they’re dissatisfied with their current MLM program due to lack of support, you might want to emphasize your great support system. You will certainly find folks who answer with A only to discover they didn’t understand this was network marketing, and they may have some concerns about that. Best you define and defend the MLM concept first before even saying a word about your specific opportunity. You can glean so much valuable information about a prospect from this one simple qualifying question. Yet many systems are completely void of any such information gathering mechanism. They’re based on the proverbial “throw the mud against the wall and see what sticks” method. Even when it sticks, it’s still mud.

When evaluating a system, ask these questions:

How much profit is build into your training and support tools? There should be very little, and preferable none.

Did those who designed this system use the same system to build their downline? If so, when? What worked just five years ago may not be as effective today.

Did you move a group over from another company? If so, how much does that group account for your current touted income?

Did you make any kind of deal with corporate? Are you receiving any income outside what is normally paid to all other distributors? Also, ask them what level they are to the company. If they are first level, they are either a founding distributor or they cut a deal.

Did ANYONE ever actually use this system to build a substantial, sustained downline? Or, is it based on Pollyannish theory? Note: “Sustained” is a key qualifier to this question. There are many recruitment focused systems that effectively build large downlines but generate little recurrent sales volume, thus are volatile and short lived.

Are any fundamental, time proven sales methods built into the system? Specifically, does it allow for any variance in the presentation or information package? It should.

Please understand, there are many effective, proven systems being taught and practiced throughout network marketing today. As usual, I’m dwelling on the negative because, well, it’s my job. I’m here to tell you what you won’t hear at a typical opportunity meeting. Bad, or just impotent systems are not the norm, but they are all too common, and you should be aware of not only what to look for, but look out for.

The A-B-C Technique

By Len Clements © 1994

Would you ever try to pour hot coffee into a thermos with the lid still on? Could you put a video cassette into your VCR if it already had a cartridge in it? Of course not. Unfortunately, the way that most people prospect for MLM partners makes about as much sense.

For many years, we’ve all been taught to call up our friends and try to get them to come to an opportunity meeting, or at least read some information or watch a video about our MLM opportunity. To do anything different would be going against the number one commandment of our industry – duplicate what works. In other words, “Thou shalt not try to reinvent the wheel”. I’m certainly not about to suggest otherwise. However, I do believe there are very effective ways of making the wheel roll a little smoother and a little faster.

First and foremost, we must remember that when you propose your opportunity, you are offering a business opportunity. A chance at being a true entrepreneur. Secondly, you are proposing your prospect get involved with multi-level marketing. In other words, you have at least one, and probably two, major challenges here. Challenges you must overcome before you can even think about proposing your specific opportunity. Challenges that, nine times out of ten, are the main reason why your prospect won’t even look at your opportunity.

Surveys indicate that about 85% of all working Americans would like to own their own businesses, if they could. In other words, if all obstacles were removed, they would prefer to be their own boss rather than work for someone else. This amounts to approximately 160 million people! These are your MLM prospects. Now, when 160 million people want to do something and don’t do it, there must be a good reason. When they are asked, they usually come up with these four.

It takes too much money. I don’t have thousands of dollars to invest in a business.

It takes too much time. I don’t want to work 80 hours a week to get my business going.

Too risky. Over 80% of all businesses fail in the first two years.

I don’t know how. I’ve never taken any business courses. I don’t know anything about taxes, accounting, marketing, etc.

I can assure you, if your prospect is not currently operating their own business, they have considered the possibility at some time in their lives. They have also determined all the reasons why they can’t (probably all four reasons). Therefore, before you even start to offer your MLM opportunity, you might want to dispel, at least slightly, these beliefs about why they can’t go into business for themselves.

Let’s say you are having lunch with your friend and you casually mention the fact that you are thinking about starting your own business. Then you ask if they have ever considered it. Sure, they have considered it at some time or another. Well, why didn’t you, you ask. They will inevitably respond with one or more of the previous four reasons.

Now comes the fun part. You ask them if they would ever consider going into business for themselves if; the total start up costs were under $500 and the income potential was higher than the earnings of some CEO’s of fortune 500 companies; the total time investment could be as little as 10-20 hours a week; they could continue to work in their present job until the income from their business was sufficient to earn them at least an equal income, so there is little risk; and best of all, there were numerous consultants available to them who are experts at running this business, who would train and advise them personally, for an unlimited number of hours, for the life of their business, absolutely free! Not only that, you say, but there is another company that will take care of all your research and development, shipping, payroll, payroll and sales taxes, legal problems, and so on. And, this company will do this for them every month, for the life of their business, for around $20.00 a year.

Of course, your friend won’t believe any of this. Ask them if they would consider it if all this were true. Most likely they’ll say something like, “Well, sure. But there’s got to be a catch”. Is there? Is this not an exact description of your basic MLM business opportunity? Is any of this even an exaggeration? No. You’ve just completed step “A” of the “ABC” technique.

Now, for the first time during this conversation, you will suggest that this type of business involves “network” or “multi-level” marketing. But don’t get into your specific opportunity yet. There still may be a major hurdle yet to overcome. You still have step “B” to take care of.

There are basically three types of people you are going to come across during your recruiting efforts. First, the cynic or skeptic. They believe MLM’s are all scams, get-rich-quick schemes, illegal pyramids, involve door-to-door and home party sales, and so on. One person I know even referred to them as “cults”. For whatever reason, these people have a low opinion of MLM in general. The second type are those that don’t know anything about MLM. Perhaps only that it’s “something” like a pyramid, or that they’ve at least heard of AMWAY or Mary Kay. The third, unfortunately smallest, group are those that are naturally intrigued by the concept. Usually these are people who were originally in the second group who heard about someone who made a lot of money doing MLM. By the way, if you find someone in this group, skip step “B”. This step is presenting the MLM concept as a viable, honest form of business. This usually involves explaining what MLM is not, not what it is.

“You must open your prospect’s mind
before you can pour anything into it”

Step “B” could be an entire column unto itself. Basically, you may want to mention that there are well over five-million people in the U.S. that are pursuing this form of business. Also, throw out names like Rexall, MCI and US Sprint, which all involve MLM as a means of obtaining new customers. Briefly explain the obvious difference between an illegal pyramid and a legitimate MLM company. When I pursued this business (before I was forced to be “objective”) I would always include favorable articles about the MLM industry in general. You may want to lead in with a generic video or audio cassette, that serves to only legitimize the industry, not promote any particular opportunity. Whatever you can do to give the industry more credibility, do it now.

Once these first two “preparation” steps are completed, you should then hand your prospect the video or literature about your opportunity. Challenge them to find the catch. Tell them you can’t, even though you thought it was too good to be true too. Instead of trying to get them to find out what all the good things there are about your program, encourage them to find all the bad things! Challenge them to debunk it. Let’s face it. Someone would be much more likely to watch a video if it were for the purpose of justifying their negative beliefs, than to contradict them. It’s human nature.

The bottom line is this. The real trick to successful recruiting in any MLM organization is not convincing someone who has looked at your opportunity to get involved with you, it’s getting them to just look at the opportunity. Don’t you agree? Let’s face it, once someone seriously looks at a good MLM opportunity, it’s pretty hard to not be at least a little intrigued. Unfortunately, 9 out of 10 won’t seriously look. Actually, I’d guess 5 of 10 won’t look at all! You’ve got to get them to just look. If you’ve got a good opportunity, the rest will take care of itself.

A good analogy here would be the thermos and the VCR. Like the thermos, you must open your prospects mind before you can pour anything into it. And like the VCR, there may already be something in there that you might have to remove first. To borrow an analogy from Anthony Robbins (Robbins Research), it’s as if your beliefs have legs like a chair. Only these legs are usually solid steel instead of wood. Believe me, people’s beliefs as to why they can’t go into business for themselves, and sometimes what they believe MLM to be, are solid beliefs. If you don’t do something to at least weaken those legs before you come in with your new belief, forget it. It will bounce right off.

I’m certainly not suggesting that this “ABC” technique is going to knock down those legs (although it could). But if you can at least instill some doubt in the mind of your prospect, some spark of interest, or at least pessimistic curiosity, you’ve made a major gain.

I also realize this technique lends itself to certain situations better than others. For example, this technique might be a little more difficult to pull off if you do a lot of long distance sponsoring. But it’s still not impossible. Put it in writing, or better yet do your own audio tape.

For the last 30 or so years, in almost every MLM organization, we’ve all been taught to go straight to step “C”. Contact your prospect and propose your MLM business opportunity. “MLM” and “business” may be scary propositions, and needlessly so. Steps “A” and “B” are designed to reduce or eliminate this stigma, so you can bring more prospects to step “C”. Get them to look!

The Tax People: A Case Study

By Len Clements © 2000

The numerous state and federal actions against this company is now old news. Every MLM “watchdog” has reported on it as well as several news sources. I believe that what, where and when these actions were, and are being taken is certainly important, but most importantly is why. Since The Tax People, aka TTP, aka AIM, aka Advantage International Marketing, aka Renaissance, has been under investigation for both alleged securities and pyramid violations by a number of state and federal agencies, I believe it makes for an excellent case study. Here, in chronological order, is a history of TTP and it’s founder and President Michael Cooper, including commentary and a final analysis.

1984: Michael Cooper discovers network marketing. He has initial success as a distributor only to see the company fail.

1989: Cooper is the Executive VP and founder of National Energy Specialists Association.

1991: Cooper is the National Director of Training for American Gold Eagle, a gold coin MLM, and one of the early pioneers of the binary compensation plan. AGE is eventually shut down for securities and pyramid violations (they claimed the Gold Eagle coins were a great “investment”). The pyramid label was due mainly to AGE reps buying product solely to acquire additional income positions in the compensation plan (the emphasis was on recruitment, not actual sales of the products – keep that in mind for later).

[Comment: The founders of AGE, David and Martha Crowe, will go on to found Gold Unlimited (without Cooper), which will also be shut down with 11 criminal counts against David and 10 against Martha. The Crowes fled prosecution and were recently featured on the TV show America’s Most Wanted].

1992: Cooper is the founder and President of Network Institute, also a binary, which deals primarily with productivity tools. The main product is the Management Action Planner (called MAP), an elaborate, leather bound time management and productivity system. The MAP sells for $295. There is a monthly $30 charge that includes supplies for the MAP, access to a phone training system called “One Minute Manager” and a tax deduction tracking system called Tax Tracker.

1993: Cooper sells Network Institute to his partner and takes the position of Executive Vice President of a start up long distance reseller called TeleFriend (which used a unilevel comp plan). Soon after, Network Institute is merged into TeleFriend as a distributor support system. Later this same year Cooper leaves TeleFriend on unfriendly terms.

1994: Cooper assumes the position as President of a small network marketing company called Truly Special (TRI). TRI sold specialty foods manufactured by it’s parent company Briarwood Farms.

November, 1994: Cooper and other senior personnel of TRI begin holding meetings where potential incomes of $100,000 are touted with an initial “investment” of $100. Also, shares of common stock in a company called Aunt Myra’s (AMI), a non-MLM marketer of ground beef seasoning, is offered for sale to participants in TRI. During this time Cooper also conducts live, national opportunity calls.

[Comment: On one such call, which I was listening in on, Cooper questions the reasoning behind distributor requests for him to focus more on the value of the products. He responds, “If I told you you could make $10,000 a month selling horse manure, would you care what the product was!?”]

December, 1994: Truly Special, Cooper, and other senior management are hit with an “Emergency Cease and Desist” order by the Securities Division of the Kansas Attorney General’s office for selling unregistered securities without a license. Aunt Myra’s is not a public company and it’s stock can not be legally sold. Furthermore, there are charges that TRI itself is an illegally sold security based on the $100 “investment,” and the heavy emphasis placed on recruiting others to invest, rather than product sales. The state’s charges also include various full-disclosure violations, such as; they failed to disclose to investors that in 1987 Aunt Myra’s was hit with a Cease & Desist order for having violated various provisions of the Kansas securities laws, and in 1989 AMI’s President and Chairman Gary Kershner was found guilty of two felony counts of selling unregistered securities.

Early 1995: TRI and Cooper are again under investigation by the KS AG’s office. This time the focus is on pyramid violations rather than securities violations. Once again, the catalyst to the investigation is the heavy emphasis on recruitment rather than product sales. Within weeks, Cooper closes down the company.

June, 1995: Cooper launches Renaissance Designer Gallery, a marketer of high ticket goods such as jewelry, art, collectables, and gourmet food. He is the majority shareholder, owning 64.04% of it’s common stock.

April, 1996: Cooper signs a posthumous Consent Judgment pursuant to the KS AG’s investigation of Truly Special. He agrees to be “permanently enjoined from engaging in those acts and practices alleged to be deceptive or unconscionable… (and) agree that engaging in such acts or similar acts, after the date of this Consent Judgment, shall constitute a violation of this order.”

[Comment: Cooper also agrees, and is now legally obligated, to disclose the existent and provisions of the Judgment to all of his (not Truly Special’s) future employees, agents and representatives for the next two years. Allegedly, he has not done so.]

November, 1997: Advantage International Marketing (AIM) is formed as a division of Renaissance to market tax related products and services. By the end of 1997 AIM has 489 distributors. AIM would eventually be known as The Tax People.

March, 1998: Renaissance purportedly has 20,933 distributors. AIM now has 1,648.

May, 1998: During a special interactive teleconference call several hundred AIM reps are introduced to “Commitment 2000.” Cooper himself describes how all AIM reps who will commit, in writing, to simply remaining active in the company until January, 2000 will receive 1,000 shares of stock in the company “regardless of whether they ever make a sale.” He further explains that an additional 1,000 shares of stock will be issued for every sale (of the $300 Tax Advantage System) that is made. In addition, he claims 1,000 shares of this stock is “worth today over $40,000.” He concludes by cautioning against promoting or advertising the deal by means other than private invitations. He refers to the information related on the call as “double secret stuff” and further comments “There are no misdemeanors in securities violations.”

June, 1998: Cooper files form SB-2 with the SEC in preparation to register common stock in Renaissance for the purpose of sale and distribution to distributors per the “Commitment 2000” announcement made in May.

August, 1998: Cooper applies to the SEC for withdrawal of their Registration Statement citing their inability to secure a broker/dealer required for registration purposes in several states.

September, 1998: Cooper is again sanctioned by the Securities Division of the Kansas AG’s office. Again it’s for offering unregistered securities (stock in his company, which was not yet registered) and for “omissions and misrepresentations” concerning the offer. For example, disclosure documents filed by the company revealed that the tangible book value of the stock was less than 0.005 cents per share – not $40 per share as was announced on the “Commitment 2000” call. The proposed offer price was 10 cents per share. Plus, distributors were never told during the call that not only was the stock not registered, there had not yet even been any action taken to register it. Cooper is forced to rescind the “Challenge 2000” offer to the 1,196 who signed up for it.

[Comment: It should be noted here that based on the definition of a security (SEC vs. W. J. Howey Co., 1946) the “investment” made in exchange for stock need only be “consideration.” That being; money, gold dust, chickens, labor – anything of value. Indeed, the SEC has even defined a “promise” as being “consideration.”]

October, 1998: The Kansas Attorney General’s office appoints a Special Agent to begin a formal investigation into the business practices of TTP.

May, 1999: Dan Gleason, President of My Tax Man, resigns from the Board of Directors of AIM/TTP citing a difference in product philosophy. My Tax Man is the company hired to fulfill the monthly tax services supplied by AIM/TTP, such as audit protection, 1040 preparation and review, telephone consultation, etc.

June, 1999: My Tax Man sends a “Termination of Service” to Cooper announcing they will no longer be providing the ongoing monthly services.

[Comments: This may well be one of those “you can’t quit ’cause you’re fired” deals. Gleason claims there was a falling out between him and Cooper resulting in a demise of contract negotiations, so he terminated the agreement. Cooper claims he terminated the services of My Tax Man which may explain why no further contract negotiations were offered by TTP. We’ll likely never know who really terminated who first. However, Gleason did initiate his company’s separation from TTP.]

July, 1999: TTP comes under investigation by the Securities Enforcement Division of the Attorney General’s office of Hawaii for possible pyramid and securities violations.

Summer, 1999: The Missouri AG’s office begins an investigation of TTP.

August, 1999: My Tax Man is issued a subpoena by the KS Attorney General’s office demanding the TTP member database. That same month Dan Gleason is deposed by the KS AG’s investigating attorney. An agent from the Criminal Division of the IRS is present for the deposition.

August, 1999: Sandy Botkin, founder of the Tax Reduction Institute and author of TTP’s “Tax Relief System” officially parts ways with TTP, demanding that TTP discontinue use of of his products, name and likeness.

[Comment: Botkin claims he verbally requested that TTP stop using his name and material as early as May. The Tax Relief System was the up front $300 product purchased by new TTP reps which activated their position in the compensation plan.]

January, 2000: Sandy Botkin sues TTP for continuing to use his name, and for using promotional material that suggested they were still using his tax education package as their Tax Relief System.

[Comment: Several months after I had first heard that Botkin had completely disassociated himself with TTP I received in the mail, unsolicited, an audio tape featuring an interview between Michael Cooper and Sandy Botkin praising the benefits of Botkin’s “Tax Relief System.” I discovered that, in fact, the tape was still a TTP supplied sales aid even though the product being sold by TTP was no longer Botkin’s.]

April, 2000: Cooper and TTP are the subject of a moderately negative article in The Kansas City Star newspaper

[Comments: Within the article Cooper responds to questions concerning his involvement with Truly Special by saying he took the president position weeks before the legal complaint was filed and was unaware of the company’s legal problems. However, within that complaint it is stated, “Defendant Cooper is an individual who was President of Truly Special, Inc. during the time the acts alleged in paragraph eight occurred.” It further states, in paragraph eight, that “…the following acts and practices by Defendants Cooper and (codefendant) were deceptive and/or unconscionable and violate the Kansas Consumer Protection Act…”. Cooper’s signature appears at the end of the Judgment.]

April, 2000: The Criminal Division of the IRS demands the latest TTP member database from My Tax Man, which they supply.

May, 2000: W. Bradford Murray sues TTP in Federal court for copyright infringement claiming much of the tax advise in the new Tax Relief System was taken verbatim from his work. The company claims it acquired the rights legally through an intermediary.

May, 2000: The KS AG’s office reports 27 formal complaints have been filed against Renaissance, AIM and TTP dating back to 1995. Fourteen are still open (unresolved).

[Comments: The TTP spin from the field was that this was par for the MLM course. Not true. This is, relatively speaking, a substantially high number of complaints for a five year old company.]

June, 2000: In an internal IRS newsletter within an article titled “Tax Alchemy” they warn, “In a multilevel marketing scheme, unsuspecting investors may be told they can convert their personal expenses into home business deductions by selling the tax shelter program to their friends.” This is the first public hint that there is an IRS investigation of TTP.

July, 2000: TTP now claims to have over 50,000 representatives.

August, 2000: The North Carolina Attorney General advises Cooper that TTP is an illegal pyramid and they should stop soliciting NC residents.

September, 2000: Cooper and TTP are the subject of a harsher, although not entirely negative article in the New York Times. The article is primarily critical of the tax strategies taught by TTP.

September, 2000: TTP is the subject of discussion during a segment of The O’Rielly Factor, a Fox News television program. An ex-IRS commissioner is also part of the on-air discussion. The lone TTP representative (not Cooper) spends most of the ten minute segment deflecting accusations of pyramiding and defending their tax strategies.

[Comment: The segment ended on it’s only positive note with the host suggesting TTP’s $40 per month fee for audit protection “sounds like a good deal.” However, Mr. O’Rielly apparently didn’t have a calculator handy. More on this in the final commentary.]

October, 2000: The North Dakota securities commissioner issues a cease and desist order to halt “recent” offers of stock in Renaissance/TTP to at least one NC resident as an incentive to keep them participating.

[Comment: Unbelievable.]

October, 2000: The TTP home office is raided by the Criminal Division of the IRS as well as the US Postal Inspection Service.

October, 2000: The Kansas AG’s office receives inquiries about it’s investigation of TTP by 8 other states, including California and Florida, as well as from the SEC and FTC.

October, 2000: TTP agrees to a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) requiring them to shut down their web site, halt all new sales and enrollment of new reps, and discontinue the paying of commissions and bonuses. The company’s assets are frozen, although the order does allow for the ongoing fulfillment of various services, such as audit protection and tax advice, and the payment of basic operating expenses.

[Comment: This is a state action and it separate from the federal investigations.]

December 11th, 2000: A hearing will take place to decide the resolution to the TRO. Either it will be lifted, modified, or the company will be permanently enjoined from doing further business.

In the KS AG’s Petition to the court (to be decided upon December 11th), there are several key statements. A listing and analysis of each follows:

1. “Defendants (TTP/Cooper) are responsible for the acts and omissions of their employees and agents under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior and agency.”

[Comment: Much of the spin coming from the field is that TTP was clean, but the actions of a few renegade distributors was the cause of the legal actions. The same case was made by Equinox. It didn’t work.]

2. “questionable use of home business deductions”

[Comments: Cooper and field leadership claim all the tax strategies taught by TTP are perfectly legal, thus there’s nothing to worry about. While the strategies themselves may be sound – although in some cases even that idea is being debated – it’s the manner in which they were implemented that is the challenge. Yes, it is legal to deduct a business trip even if you have some fun while you’re there – but the trip has to be primarily for business purposes. You can’t take a vacation to Hawaii, stick a few business cards on windshields and call it a business trip. Yes, it is legal to hire your children and deduct what you pay them, but they actually have to work in your business, and you have to set up a real payroll system – preparing W-4 forms, filing quarterly 941 forms, issuing W-2, etc. Yes, it is legal to deduct a portion of your home used for business – but it has to be (among numerous other limitations) an area used 100% as your primary place of business – so your kitchen table doesn’t count.

So, again, the legal challenges to the TTP strategies are not so much to do with the strategies themselves, but the questionable manner which they are being promoted and used. Remember, the IRS isn’t assuming anything. They don’t have to guess. They’ve had over a year to analyze the TTP teachings and to review the tax returns of TTP members and reps before they took action. The KS AG has had over two years. Obviously, they didn’t like what they saw.]

3. “Defendants are in the business of selling tax deductions.”

[Comments: The primary reason for starting a business must be to make a profit, not create tax deductions. If you don’t show a profit motive the business may be declared a “hobby” by the IRS thus related expenses would not be deductible. Based on everything I’ve seen and heard from TTP and it’s reps, the emphasis clearly seems to be on the tax savings you’d receive by becoming a TTP rep. In fact, a common practice among some TTP reps was to tell prospective buyers to lower their withholding for taxes even before they joined to cover the up front cost for the systems.]

4. “In essence, Defendants are selling a home based business to participants that consists of nothing more that selling the same business to other participants so that they too can take the aggressive business tax deductions promoted by Defendant’s scheme.”

[Comments: This point reminds me of those manuals on how to get rich in mail order by selling manuals on how to get rich in mail order. Essentially, the Kansas AG is saying there is really no business here, other than the business of selling the business.]

5. “The following false claims are contained in one of three of Defendant’s video tape promotions:
(a) ‘This program is approved for 8 hours of continuing professional education…’

(b) ‘Renaissance is a publicly traded company.'”

[Comment: Although Cooper did take steps to have each of these statements eventually come true, neither was at the the time the videos were produced, nor are they now.]

6. “Defendants have engaged in unconscionable acts or practices in connection with consumer transactions while knowing or having reason to know that when the consumer transactions were entered into the price of Defendant’s services grossly exceeded the price at which similar services were readily available…”

[Comments: You can’t mark up a product just to support commissions in an MLM comp plan. Indeed, there are other, non-MLM, tax services that offer almost identical services as TTP for less than half the price. The concern here is that most TTP reps were not purchasing the monthly service just for the value of the service, but to also meet the qualifications in the comp plan. In other words, they likely would not have paid $100 per month for those services if there were no income opportunity.

Is the $40 per month for audit protection a “good deal?” Well, considering the average American is 35 and the average age of death is around 75, and according to the IRS the average number of times someone is audited is once every 120 years (0.8% per year) that would mean the average TTP member would pay $19,200 in their lifetime to protect themselves from the 1 in 3 chance of being audited at least once. Of course, you could not pay the $19,200 to TTP and instead pay the best tax attorney in the country to represent you IF you are audited and still save several thousand dollars.]

7. “Defendants adopted, implemented and enforced a distribution system whereby Defendants paid commissions, bonuses and other benefits to participants who purchased ‘Founders Paks’ that were not based on the sale of bona fide products to verified end-user consumers.”

[Comments: The KS AG put this point more succinctly when she stated, “I believe it is illogical for people to buy four or more tax relief systems unless it is to expand the pyramid.” This is the crux of the pyramid accusation. Basically, MLM companies can only pay commissions on products that would realistically be purchased based on the value of the product alone. In other words, if it’s sales volume that would only be generated by enrolling a new rep, then it would be income based primarily on recruitment which is the epitome of what defines an illegal pyramid. I have asked a total of nine TTP reps what the value was to purchasing a Founder’s Pak (four Tax Relief Systems for $1,200 total) and nine out of nine responded by telling me how it would activate more income earning positions, thus I could earn more money. In one case I explained why this was a bad answer and the distributor responded by claiming I would also need extra systems for demos. Well, that would then make them sales aids and still non-commissionable (because only reps would purchase sales aids). He then decided to take a life-line and call a friend, a “top distributor” in TTP. His response was that a new rep needed extra kits so as to have “revolving inventory.” However, when a system is sold and the paperwork is sent to the company, TTP automatically drop ships a Tax Relief System. “Yes,” was the response, “so your customer now has two kits and they give one back to you to replace in your inventory.” Okay, so why tie up $900 of my family’s budget (for the extra 3 kits besides my own) in inventory I may or may not sell, when the company will drop ship on an as-needed basis? Besides that, TTP’s own marketing material promoted buying four systems to get “double the pay out.” Clearly, the first answer was the right answer, no matter how wrong it was.

What is curiously missing from any legal argument against TTP is the fact that each of the four positions that are activated with a Founder’s Pak purchase would eventually require a $100 per month purchase to keep each of them fully qualified. That would be $400 per month (which, as it was described to me, would happen automatically once your income was sufficient to cover this cost). There seems to be no doubt that this would be a token purchase just to meet a quota and not for the value of what’s received.]

8. The Petition asks the court, among various other proposed penalties, “that Defendants be permanently enjoined from engaging in any form of business involving multilevel marketing or referral sales.”

Final Analysis and Commentary

I’ve spoken with many TTP reps over the years. I’ve spoken at one of their events here in Las Vegas and met with many of them personally. I found them to be sincere, honest folks who genuinely believed in what they were doing. Today, when I listen in on their conference calls and read their on-line messages my heart aches. It looks as if most of the leadership is staying loyal based on company propaganda that suggests the TRO will be lifted, TTP will be vindicated, and it will soon be business as usual. Also, that the federal raid was initiated by competitor lies, and all the actions would be dropped once the authorities discover how TTP really operates.

Reps are also being told that many other successful companies, such as Herbalife, Nu Skin and Amway, have gone through equally challenging times and survived. Herbalife did $430 million in the U.S. in 1983. They did $30 million in ’84. TTP did $24 million last year, before the legal action. I know Herbalife, and TTP is no Herbalife. What also wasn’t woven into the spin is the fact that each of those companies were financially devastated in the U.S. by the legal actions against them and very likely survived due to revenue from foreign markets – a deep well TTP doesn’t have access to. 

Reps are also being encouraged to keep paying their $40 per month for audit protection because now, with the IRS scrutinizing their returns, they need this service more than ever! However, Cooper has openly stated that if the IRS were to audit too many client returns the company may not have the resources to fulfill its audit protection promise. What’s more, if someone has paid the $40 fee for the last few years then stops, and a past TTP prepared tax return is then audited, TTP will not represent them (typically, audits begin at least 18 months after a return is filed). You have to keep paying the $40 now to protect past returns.

Unlike what’s coming out of the TTP spin cycle, these actions are not due to “misunderstandings” perpetrated by TTP “enemies.” The IRS criminal investigation is clearly due to what they saw, not hearsay testimony by vindictive ex-experts. The raid is actually the end-stage of the investigation which, on a state level, have been on-going for over two years, and at least one year on a federal level. Understand, a search warrant can’t be obtained without strong “probable cause.” A federal raid can not be authorized without the authorities believing they already have a very strong case. A TRO could not be initiated without a judge reviewing the evidence and agreeing there is a strong case. And remember, the TRO is a state action. Even if it is lifted, there is still not one, but two separate federal investigations (IRS and U.S. Postal Service) to contend with, not to mention the various other states that have taken, or will take, action against them. There appears to be a conga-line forming.

There are three possible outcomes to the eventual ruling on the AG’s petition:

1. The company is permanently enjoined from doing business. That is, they’re gone. It’s over. This is what the AG is asking the court to do. If such action is taken it would not be unusual to also see Michael Cooper banned for life from further participation, in any capacity, in MLM. This was the penalty imposed on two of the founders of FutureNet, as well as Equinox founder Bill Gouldd. The most horrific aspect of this possible outcome is that, if TTP is formally and finally declared an illegal pyramid, all of the previous deductions taken by TTP reps may no longer be deductible.

2. TTP will be required to completely overhaul the program, which would likely include a significant price decrease, the complete elimination of Founder’s Paks (or of qualifying multiple income centers), the elimination of TTP itself as “the business” which deductions can be taken, and a provision that no purchase volume is commissionable unless there is a certain amount of verified retail sales to non-distributors (it was 50% in the Jewelway case). There could also be a court mandated refund to any current or past reps who want their money back. In other words, TTP is allowed back in business and then quickly dies a natural death by attrition.

3. The TRO is modified or remains the same and TTP fights it out in court – and to the victor go the spoils. With no end in sight to the moratorium on paying commission, reps would leave in droves. It would be business suicide.

One would think that the chances of outcome #3 happening is slim to none. But then, Michael Cooper, who is a member of Mensa (the high IQ society), seems to have an SQ (Stubbornness Quotient) even higher. I was specifically told by a representative of the KS AG’s office that their investigation was initiated due to the number of complaints being filed, almost all of which due to dishonored refund requests (which allegedly came after the 30 day window to receive refunds). The AG’s office claims refund requests were “shuffled around” to force them beyond the 30 day window. TTP denies this. Regardless, at last count there were 27 complaints. If you could have happily and swiftly refunded $300 to 27 people and avoided a state Attorney General investigation (and potential destruction of your company), wouldn’t you have just paid the refunds?

This could be the most costly $8,100 an MLM company ever saved.

Epilogue

On December 12th there were three separate live conference calls to announce the results of a settlement that had allegedly been reached with the Attorney General of Kansas. Each call was conducting by a leading distributor who informed the well over 1,000 listeners that a settlement was in fact eminent, but the details could not be announced until the “documents are filed,” which would be at any time. By the third and final call of the day the announcement was made that the details of the settlement still could not be discussed while “they cross the ‘I’s and dot the ‘t’s” (exact quote) and that the details would be announce on Sunday, the 17th. As it turns out, there was no settlement.

On December 17th Michael Cooper addressed the settlement issue on a live, national conference call. He claims the Kansas AG had proposed a settlement offer requiring TTP pay a one million dollar fine, admit guilt, and make one simple change to their plan. Allegedly, that change involved nothing more than charging a distributor the “wholesale” cost on all purchases of the Tax Advantage System after the first purchase. He claimed “everything else was fine.” The settlement also required that Cooper must step down as CEO. However, he further stated that on Monday (the day the settlement was to be announced), after agreeing on the settlement terms, the AG added several more “hoops” to the settlement. Cooper then claims to have had a discussion with other TTP leadership and, as a group, decided to forgo the settlement and await their day in court. That has been rescheduled for February 12th. In the mean time TTP can’t pay commission checks and reps may not sell or recruit.

Of course, all this begs the question, if the only thing the AG found wrong was charging full price for extra TAS kits, why the requirement to admit guilt to being a pyramid scheme, pay a million dollar fine, and banish Cooper?

Will there be a settlement before 2/12? Unlikely. That bridge seems to be burned to a cinder. On the national call, Cooper angrily made several incendiary comments regarding the Attorney General such as, “we got jerked around,” and that his “mistake was trusting and believing when I’m told we have a deal we have a deal.” He also stated that “God’s on our side” and that they were “on the brink of one of the greatest tragedies in corporate American history.”
It get’s worse.

On December 8th federal prosecutors moved to have TTP forfeit $8.9 million that was seized from 13 separate accounts associated with CEO Michael Cooper and TTP/Renaissance. The funds were seized as part of the raid conducting by the IRS and US Postal Inspectors Office. The U.S. attorney for Kansas filed a civil law suit claiming TTP has been involved in mail fraud and money laundering. Remember, this is a totally separate action from the settlement negotiations with the state Attorney General’s office.

The complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney divulged even more scathing evidence of fraud and deception by TTP and Cooper. Details of conversations between TTP corporate personnel, including Cooper, and undercover agents are described, as well as allegations of fraud pertaining to Cooper’s personal history. In one case, Cooper is videotaped while making the claim “I overpaid my taxes by $4,000 per year for the past 15 years.” However, based on IRS records there were seven years since 1985 in which Cooper’s total tax liability was less than $3,000, including two years (1991 and 1995) in which his tax liability was ZERO. In an audio tape produced by Cooper he made the statement, in regard to his involvement with Truly Special (his previous company before Renaissance) that he was “personally earning $20,000 per month and resigned as President and walked out on over $40,000 per month personal income.” According to Cooper’s 1995 income tax return, he reported no wages and a $52,545 loss from a sole proprietorship business venture. In yet another example, Cooper says on his recording, “I haven’t borrowed any money since 1982, don’t have a mortgage or payments on our home and we pay cash for whatever we want or need.” In fact, Cooper has filed three separate Chapter 13 bankruptcies since 1982, the last of which, in 1993, involved 39 separate creditors and debt totaling $167,000.

The entire 26 page complaint, along with several other legal filings, can be found at www.cjonline.com.

Could there be a settlement with the Feds? Again, not likely. Cooper addressed the federal action during the live call by assuring listeners he would fight to prevent the feds from “stealing your commissions.” He referred to the government’s pursuit of TTP as an act of “tyranny.”

Final Commentary

After listening to Cooper’s “Independence Day” style speech, it seems as if he genuinely believes neither he, nor TTP, has done anything wrong. What he fails to acknowledge is the fact that reps, and TTP literature, did routinely promote $1,200 Founder’s Packs as a way to qualify for more income, Cooper did make numerous false comments, the products were overpriced, reps did focus way too much on the tax savings rather than the profit motive (of starting a business) and they absolutely did apply the tax strategies in an overly aggressive manner. In fact, according to court documents, the IRS has audited many tax returns filed by TTP members over the past year that reported little gross sales and disproportionally high costs for automobile expenses, family wages, depreciation, travel and business use of the home. The federal lawsuit further states “During the civil review process, the IRS determined that many of these taxpayers were not legally entitled to claim these expenses, despite the fact that Renaissance promoters have claimed that these types of deductions are legal and appropriate… The majority of these audits have resulted in the disallowance of Renaissance-related business expenses and subsequent assessment of additional taxes and penalties.”

TTP is going to pay now, or they’re going to pay later. If Cooper really had his distributor’s best interests at heart, he’d take one for the team, pay the bill, admit guilt, step down, and let them get back to work.

The Tax People: Response & Rebuttal

By Len Clements © 2001

For those of you who are following the saga of Renaissance/The Tax People and have read my original expose’ (first published in November, 2000), you might also be aware of the alleged response by TTP CEO Michael Cooper. I say “alleged” because I do have doubts as to how much, if any, involvement Mr. Cooper actually had in constructing this response. Michael Cooper is a smart guy. These responses are not smart. I suspect they are actually the work of a TTP supporter who may have been working on behalf of Cooper. However, since Cooper has now had ample opportunity to disassociate himself from this response, I am going forward with this rebuttal assuming he at least has sanctioned it.

Let’s begin with the statement that introduces Cooper’s response: “CEO Mike Cooper’s point-by-point response of Len Clements widely read ‘case study’ of TheTaxPeople.net. Clements was apparently involved in several MLM organizations in the past with Mike.”

We’re off to a bad start. I was briefly involved as a distributor with a company operated by Cooper called Network Institute back in 1992. That’s it.

1984: Michael Cooper discovers network marketing. He has initial success as a distributor only to see the company fail. TRUE

1989: Cooper is the Executive VP and founder of National Energy Specialists Association (NESA). FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – NESA was incorporated as a not-for-profit trade association in 1984 with Mike Cooper as Executive Director, where he served until 1989. In 1989 and 1990, he was Executive Vice President of Eagle Shield, Inc., in Dallas — where he helped to build annual company sales to over $100 million a year. 

REBUTTAL: Okay, he was the Executive “Director” of NEPA in 1989, not the Executive “VP.” Otherwise, the entire statement is not only TRUE, the response just confirmed it.

1991: Cooper is the National Director of Training for American Gold Eagle, a gold coin MLM, and one of the early pioneers of the binary compensation plan. AGE is eventually shut down for securities and pyramid violations (they claimed the Gold Eagle coins were a great “investment”). The pyramid label was due mainly to AGE reps buying product solely to acquire additional income positions in the compensation plan (the emphasis was on recruitment, not actual sales of the products — keep that in mind for later). [Comment: The founders of AGE, David and Martha Crowe, will go on to found Gold Unlimited (without Cooper), which will also be shut down with 11 criminal counts against David and 10 against Martha. The Crowe’s fled prosecution and were recently featured on the TV show “America’s Most Wanted”]. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Mike Cooper was only with them for only a few months, questioned their ethics and reported in writing irregularities of the business to the North Carolina Attorney General’s office — which lead to his being one of the “key” prosecution witnesses against the Crowe’s. When asked to testify against them, he paid his own airfare and hotel expenses to North Carolina — and refused reimbursement from the government.

REBUTTAL: Again, the response to the statement labeled as “FALSE” essentially confirms the statement. Note that all I said about Cooper was that he was the National Training Director for American Gold Eagle. I made no comment as to the duration of his tenure, his motivation for leaving, nor his post-participation actions. Every word of the events described concerning AGE are accurate (which Cooper does not deny). So, exactly what was “FALSE” in my original statement?

The point of this statement was not to question the ethics of Cooper, but to point out his close, first hand experience with what was deemed to be an illegal pyramid scheme. This experience should have made him acutely aware of what defines such a scheme. That being, the paying of commission on sales volume that is only produced by distributors (thus requiring recruitment to get paid). This experience should have made him acutely aware of the legal vulnerability of offering $1,200 “Founder’s Packs” and requiring $400 per month (for redundant monthly services) to qualify four business centers.

1992: Cooper is the founder and President of Network Institute, also a binary, which deals primarily with productivity tools. The main product is the Management Action Planner (called MAP), an elaborate, leather bound time management and productivity system. The MAP sells for $295. There is a monthly $30 charge that includes supplies for the MAP, access to a phone training system called “One Minute Manager” and a tax deduction tracking system called Tax Tracker. TRUE

1993: Cooper sells Network Institute to his partner and takes the position of Executive Vice President of a start up long distance reseller called TeleFriend (which used a unilevel comp plan). Soon after, Network Institute is merged into TeleFriend as a distributor support system. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Mike Cooper and John Meadows use the Institute training systems to build the largest and fastest growing downline in TeleFriend, which prompts the company to buy the company and move both of them to their home office in Tennessee, where Mike is made Executive Vice President.

REBUTTAL: So, everything I just said is TRUE, except that I claimed Cooper sold Network Institute to his partner before taking the corporate position with TeleFriend. Well, the only reason I made this claim is because that’s what Michael Cooper told me he did! I have a very clear memory of him saying to me, during a phone conversation, that he had sold the company to John Meadows.

1993: Later this same year Cooper leaves TeleFriend on unfriendly terms. 1994: Cooper assumes the position as President of a small network marketing company called Truly Special (TRI). TRI sold specialty foods manufactured by it’s parent company Briarwood Farms. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – After a year long dispute with TeleFriend owners on behalf of his downline and all other distributors because the company is not providing the telephone service promised nor paying the distributors. The owners then share their plans to bankrupt TeleFriend and launch a new company to begin selling a $200 telephone debit card pyramid. Mike refused to participate, resigned, and took a computer consulting position with Truly Special in October, 1994. In December, he was named President of Truly Special just days before legal action is taken against the company for promoting the sale of their stock before Mike joined them. Mike never promoted the stock, and as the new President, immediately prohibited the promotion of the stock just days before legal action commenced. But as the new President, he was a company officer and was named in the action as well.

REBUTTAL: Here is perhaps the single most damning response. Either Michael Cooper is outright lying, or the author of this response is, in fact, NOT Michael Cooper (thus, the author who wrote this response is outright lying about the responses coming from Cooper).

First, note the three sentences in the original point. Once again, the response specifically confirms each sentence, word for word (yet, once again, the author labels the point as “FALSE”).

“In December, he was named President of Truly Special just days before legal action is taken against the company for promoting the sale of their stock before Mike joined them.” Now I get to say it… FALSE. I have in my possession a tape recording of two separate live presentations (one a conference call the other a meeting) given by Cooper in early November of 1994. Several times during the meeting he refers to “last Tuesday” as being “the very first day of the company.”

“Mike never promoted the stock, and as the new President, immediately prohibited the promotion of the stock just days before legal action commenced.” FALSE. During these recorded presentations he heavily promotes the stock sale. “We have a very simple monthly stock purchase plan. Any associate can participate if they wish, it’s $25.00 per month minimum.” He also states, “Most multilevel companies can’t even begin to be approved in all the regulatory manners that need to be to be on the stock market. Our company already is.” [Emphasis mine] Truly Special was not approved to be on the stock market, nor was it approved to sell stock.

November, 1994: Cooper and other senior personnel of TRI begin holding meetings where potential incomes of $100,000 are touted with an initial “investment” of $100. Also, shares of common stock in a company called Aunt Myra’s (AMI), a non-MLM marketer of ground beef seasoning, is offered for sale to participants in TRI. During this time Cooper also conducts live, national opportunity calls. [Comment: On one such call, which I was listening in on, Cooper questions the reasoning behind distributor requests for him to focus more on the value of the products. He responds, “If I told you you could make $10,000 a month selling horse manure, would you care what the product was?”] FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Mike Cooper never promoted “investments” in any MLM. A gift box of gourmet foods, similar to a large basket from Hickory Farms was sold for $100. Mike Cooper NEVER used the “horse manure” example. He did use the “peanuts, popcorn, or pantyhose” example as a theoretical discussion of analyzing the profit potential of a business before starting one. Whether you like the idea of selling pantyhose, wouldn’t you like to have been the first to market “Peter Pan,” “Orville Reddenbacker,” or “Leggs” pantyhose? (whether you wear them or not)?

REBUTTAL: During these recorded presentations Cooper uses the terms “invest” and “investment” numerous times. At one point Cooper rhetorically asks the audience if they’d become involved if the “total business investment was $100 [to make] $100,000 per year?” And yes, he absolutely did use the “horse manure analogy (I was on the call and heard it with my own ears).

December, 1994: Truly Special, Cooper, and other senior management are hit with an “Emergency Cease and Desist” order by the Securities Division of the Kansas Attorney General’s office for selling unregistered securities without a license. Aunt Myra’s is not a public company and it’s stock cannot be legally sold. Furthermore, there are charges that TRI itself is an illegally sold security based on the $100 “investment,” and the heavy emphasis placed on recruiting others to invest, rather than product sales. The state’s charges also include various full-disclosure violations, such as; they failed to disclose to investors that in 1987 Aunt Myra’s was hit with a Cease & Desist order for having violated various provisions of the Kansas securities laws, and in 1989 AMI’s President and Chairman Gary Kershner was found guilty of two felony counts of selling unregistered securities. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Aunt Myra’s was, and to the best of our knowledge, is still a publicly traded company whose stock can be legally bought and sold (but not highly recommended at this time by anyone we know). It went from inactive at $0.02 to over $0.18 (900% increase in price) in less than 90 days with Mike Cooper as President, and back to inactive at about $0.02 or less in the months immediately following his resignation to start Renaissance.

REBUTTAL: I conducted several searches, including an EDGAR search at the SEC web site, and found no record of a public company called “Aunt Myra’s.” That doesn’t mean there wasn’t in 1994, so I’ll concede that is was a public company. But that has nothing to do with the point! (It’s a nice dodge, though). Whether it was public or not, neither Truly Special, nor their reps (or Cooper) were licensed to sell stock. That was the issue. Also, Cooper was not the president of Aunt Myra’s. Aunt Myra’s was the parent company of Briarwood Farms, and Truly Special was the marketing arm of Briarwood Farms.

Early 1995: TRI and Cooper are again under investigation by the KS AG’s office. This time the focus is on pyramid violations rather than securities violations. Once again, the catalyst to the investigation is the heavy emphasis on recruitment rather than product sales. Within weeks, Cooper closes down the company. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – The securities action based on the stock option plan of the company, and the AG investigation of the MLM program were concurrent, and both resolved in short order with consent orders admitting none of the allegations, and no charges were pressed.

REBUTTAL: Reread the original statement declared “FALSE” and then try to find anything in the response that even begins to debunk the statement. So the two actions overlapped. So what? Where did I say they were not concurrent, and how does this disprove the statement? In fact, the consent order for the securities action was signed by Cooper in December of 1994 and the order regarding the pyramid action was signed in April of 1996. But why are we even wasting time on this one? It appears to be a desperate attempt to place “FALSE” after as many statements as possible.

June, 1995: Cooper launches Renaissance Designer Gallery, a marketer of high ticket goods such as jewelry, art, collectibles, and gourmet food. He is the majority shareholder, owning 64.04% of it’s common stock. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Renaissance was originally a marketer of some of the most highly DISCOUNTED priced goods in the jewelry, art and collectible fields. Renaissance expanded into additional product lines from Wrangler blue jeans to gourmet foods as we grew. Mike Cooper was the majority shareholder, owning 90% of the stock, the other 10% “gifted” to the two other principles in gratitude for their steadfast loyalty and hard work over several years they had worked with him through their painful experiences in TeleFriend, Network Institute, and Truly Special.

REBUTTAL: So, the only thing “FALSE” about the entire statement is the 64.04% figure (the response, once again, confirms the accuracy of the rest of the statement). Actually, it is true that he didn’t own 64.04% of the stock in June of 1995. He owned 64.04% of the common stock in September of 1998 when he was again accused of securities violations (we’ll get to that in a moment). 

April, 1996: Cooper signs a posthumous Consent Judgment pursuant to the KS AG’s investigation of Truly Special. He agrees to be “permanently enjoined from engaging in those acts and practices alleged to be deceptive or unconscionable… (and) agree that engaging in such acts or similar acts, after the date of this Consent Judgment, shall constitute a violation of this order.” [Comment: Cooper also agrees, and is now legally obligated, to disclose the existent and provisions of the Judgment to all of his (not Truly Special’s) future employees, agents and representatives for the next two years. Allegedly, he has not done so.] FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – The consent order only required the company Truly Special and Mike Cooper to disclose to Truly Special employees, agents and representatives those provisions. As Mike Cooper was no longer affiliated with Truly Special, he had no control over what that company disclosed or not.

REBUTTAL: I’ve got a copy of the Consent Order. It clearly states that Cooper must disclose the Judgment to all of “his” future business associates. Furthermore, his failure to disclose this Judgment was cited in the 1998 securities action against Renaissance.

November, 1997: Advantage International Marketing (AIM) is formed as a division of Renaissance to market tax related products and services. By the end of 1997 AIM has 489 distributors. AIM would eventually be known as The Tax People. March, 1998: Renaissance purportedly has 20,933 distributors. AIM now has 1,648. May, 1998: During a special interactive teleconference call several hundred AIM reps are introduced to “Commitment 2000.” Cooper himself describes how all AIM reps who will commit, in writing, to simply remaining active in the company until January, 2000 will receive 1,000 shares of stock in the company “regardless of whether they ever make a sale.” He further explains that an additional 1,000 shares of stock will be issued for every sale (of the $300 Tax Advantage System) that is made. In addition, he claims 1,000 shares of this stock is “worth today over $40,000.” He concludes by cautioning against promoting or advertising the deal by means other than private invitations. He refers to the information related on the call as “double secret stuff” and further comments “There are no misdemeanors in securities violations.” FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Based on what was believed to be competent legal advice, the C2000 stock was promised to IMAs at that time as a GIFT for believing and sticking with the company through the year 2000. It was “secret” only to the extent that they were warned not to make the stock part of the sales process as it was only for IMAs in the company prior to the upcoming annual convention, and no others. This call, which was recorded, specifically attached no value to the stock, but contemplates that it may or may not be valuable in the future, just as Prepaid stock went from 50¢ to as high as $40 per share.

REBUTTAL: I got my information from the Notice of Intent to Invoke Administrative Sanctions (Docket No. 99E027). If you were to obtain this document (which you can – it’s in the public domain) you can see for yourself. For example, Part 16, Section (e) quotes Cooper as saying the stock of Renaissance is “worth today $40 a share.” However, there appears there may have been some confusion on the part of the state’s investigator as to what Cooper was referring to when he mentions the value of “prepaid” stock. It looks like Cooper was using Prepaid Legal’s stock as an example, and the investigator may have thought he was referring to Renaissance stock. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one, so let’s strike the line “In addition, he claims 1,000 shares of this stock is worth today over $40,000.” Otherwise, every other word of this section is verifiably factual.

June, 1998: Cooper files form SB-2 with the SEC in preparation to register common stock in Renaissance for the purpose of sale and distribution to distributors per the “Commitment 2000” announcement made in May. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – The SEC filing was made in a proper and orderly fashion to effect a normal initial public offering for the company stock, and had nothing to do with C2000.

REBUTTAL: Really? So, three years after Renaissance opens for business Cooper announces the stock promotion, then one month later files with the SEC to offer stock, and that’s just a coincidence? 

August, 1998: Cooper applies to the SEC for withdrawal of their Registration Statement citing their inability to secure a broker/dealer required for registration purposes in several states. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Based upon the Kansas Securities office advising us that they had a problem with the C2000 stock “gift,” the IPO registration was voluntarily withdrawn until this issue was resolved. The company did have multiple broker-dealers and market makers ready to handle the IPO and sales of company stock in a totally proper and legal manner.

REBUTTAL: Again, strong evidence that Michael Cooper had nothing to do with this response. Surely he would know that anyone can go to the SEC web site (www.sec.gov) and simply look at this withdrawal application, which states “The Registrant has been unable to secure a broker/dealer required for Registration purposes.” Also, he would have nailed me for getting the date wrong. This withdrawal application was actually filed on February, 2000.

September, 1998: Cooper is again sanctioned by the Securities Division of the Kansas AG’s office. Again it’s for offering unregistered securities (stock in his company, which was not yet registered) and for “omissions and misrepresentations” concerning the offer. For example, disclosure documents filed by the company revealed that the tangible book value of the stock was less than 0.005 cents per share — not $40 per share as was announced on the “Commitment 2000” call. The proposed offer price was 10 cents per share. Plus, distributors were never told during the call that not only was the stock not registered, there had not yet even been any action taken to register it. Cooper is forced to rescind the “Challenge 2000” offer to the 1,196 who signed up for it. [Comment: It should be noted here that based on the definition of a security (SEC vs. W. J. Howey Co., 1946) the “investment” made in exchange for stock need only be “consideration.” That being; money, gold dust, chickens, labor — anything of value. Indeed, the SEC has even defined a “promise” as being “consideration.”] FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – The consent order in this matter was based simply on the conflict of semantics and legal interpretation. We were told that we could give away our stock for FREE if we wished. The state decided to view this as an “offer to sell” for ZERO cost. An “offer to sell” must be made by a broker dealer of a registered security. Only by this definition or interpretation could any “sanction” be levied, which was a $10,000 fine in this case. All promised stock has since been delivered to over 1,100 IMA/stockholders, as ONLY FOUR people out of almost 1,200 took the refund which was offered as part of this settlement.

REBUTTAL: Yet again, the response confirms the original “false” statement. Cooper was sanctioned for selling unregistered securities. What, exactly, was “false” about my statement?

October, 1998: The Kansas Attorney General’s office appoints a Special Agent to begin a formal investigation into the business practices of TTP.

TRUE/FALSE? Who knows? Investigators are assigned to investigate companies as a daily practice in an investigative agency.

REBUTTAL: I know. Because I asked an investigator in this case when the Special Agent was first assigned.

May, 1999: Dan Gleason, President of My Tax Man, resigns from the Board of Directors of AIM/TTP citing a difference in product philosophy. My Tax Man is the company hired to fulfill the monthly tax services supplied by AIM/TTP, such as audit protection, 1040 preparation and review, telephone consultation, etc. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Gleason tenders, then withdraws his resignation in an attempt to triple his fees while not providing the contracted services. This was the only “difference in product philosophy” discussed. After carefully explaining the several terms of Gleason’s contract that were not being fulfilled by Gleason, Gleason then agrees to continue with the company, and is issued a five-figure check for providing June services to our customers, then not only does he fail to deliver the contracted services, but is actively on national conference calls for a new competitive tax service making negative comments about TheTaxPeople.net.

REBUTTAL: Dan Gleason tells a very different story (to me, and to the court, under oath). All I said was that he resigned in May of 1999. He did.

June, 1999: My Tax Man sends a “Termination of Service” to Cooper announcing they will no longer be providing the ongoing monthly services. [Comments: This may well be one of those “you can’t quit ’cause you’re fired” deals. Gleason claims there was a falling out between him and Cooper resulting in a demise of contract negotiations, so he terminated the agreement. Cooper claims he terminated the services of My Tax Man which may explain why no further contract negotiations were offered by TTP. We’ll likely never know who really terminated who first. However, Gleason did initiate his company’s separation from TTP.] FALSE
ONLY PART-TRUE – Gleason does send a termination of service letter to TTP, but only after the phone call where he was called to answer for his unethical conduct, and Gleason’s contract was terminated on that call by the company — and both parties confirmed that termination via mail.

REBUTTAL: Again, there is no need to rebut anything since the response confirms the original statement.

July, 1999: TTP comes under investigation by the Securities Enforcement Division of the Attorney General’s office of Hawaii for possible pyramid and securities violations. TRUE/FALSE?

ONLY PART-TRUE – Yes, Hawaii regulators did their job, investigated TTP and no action was taken against the company. Many other states have inquired for information from TTP over the years, and some could call these “investigations” if they wished. However, we view it as regulators simply doing their jobs, and upon review of our materials and company, no state but Kansas has taken any action against TTP.

REBUTTAL: First of all, this was not an “inquiry.” I spoke directly to a representative of the SED who said the “investigation” was concerning the “possible” operation of an illegal pyramid. Also, when a home state AG issues a Temporary Restraining Order and is seeking an Injunction against a company, it is non uncommon for other state and/or federal investigations to lay back and await the outcome. Obviously, it makes no sense for Hawaii, or any other state, to continue to use up resources investigating a company that may be put out of business soon by another agency.

Summer, 1999: The Missouri AG’s office begins an investigation of TTP. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – See above.

REBUTTAL: The statement is verifiably true and the response essentially confirms it. This is one of many cases where the respondent, whomever it is, just likes to put “False” after everything.

August, 1999: My Tax Man is issued a subpoena by the KS Attorney General’s office demanding the TTP member database. That same month Dan Gleason is deposed by the KS AG’s investigating attorney. An agent from the Criminal Division of the IRS is present for the deposition. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – We have reason to believe Gleason / “My Tax Man” instigated this subpoena through proactive campaign to smear TTP’s name and reputation. The very same tax strategies and marketing he endorsed as a paid contractor for TTP are now marketed by “My Tax Man” as the “Tax Toolbox,” yet he keeps a straight face while he says we are “bad,” but his copycat program is “good.” TTP filed suit against Gleason, which is ultimately “settled to the satisfaction of all parties.”

REBUTTAL: You are probably seeing a pattern here. Regardless of the alleged impetus for the AG subpoena of the TTP database or the deposition of Gleason, these events absolutely did occur during the date specified. Not one word of the response in any way disproves one word of my statement which was labeled “false.”

August, 1999: Sandy Botkin, founder of the Tax Reduction Institute and author of TTP’s “Tax Relief System” officially parts ways with TTP, demanding that TTP discontinue use of his products, name and likeness. [Comment: Botkin claims he verbally requested that TTP stop using his name and material as early as May. The Tax Relief System was the up front $300 product purchased by new TTP reps which activated their position in the compensation plan.] FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Botkin was hired in early 1997 to be the voice on the “Ex-IRS Agents Don’t Lie” audio tape scripted, produced and owned by TTP. The Tax Advantage System (TAS) sold at that time was written and printed well before TTP even knew Botkin existed. He was never listed as an author and was never paid anything for or on the sales of the TAS, of which he had no interest.

REBUTTAL: In an interview with Botkin he stated that it was his material. But then, so did Michael Cooper on the a fore mentioned audio tape! Botkin refers to “the program we put together” and “my system” right on the tape, and Cooper, who is interviewing Botkin, refers to the TAS as “your course” and twice as “your program.” But again, debating this issue appears to be an attempt to deflect attention from the real concern: that being, Botkin no longer wished to be associated with TTP and did demand to have his name and material disassociated with it – and TTP continued to use this tape long after Botkin was gone.

January, 2000: Sandy Botkin sues TTP for continuing to use his name, and for using promotional material that suggested they were still using his tax education package as their Tax Relief System. [Comment: Several months after I had first heard that Botkin had completely disassociated himself with TTP I received in the mail, unsolicited, an audio tape featuring an interview between Michael Cooper and Sandy Botkin praising the benefits of Botkin’s “Tax Relief System.” I discovered that, in fact, the tape was still a TTP supplied sales aid even though the product being sold by TTP was no longer Botkin’s.] FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – TTP sues Botkin in September, 1998, in order to terminate his contract. The lawsuit is ultimately “settled to the satisfaction of all parties.” Botkin never sued TTP. The “Ex-IRS Agents Don’t Lie” audio tapes were always owned by TTP, not Botkin, and many independent reps used their inventory as they wished even after TTP stopped promoting Botkin in any way. The tape was one of many successes for TTP.

REBUTTAL: Botkin’s version of events is practically the exact opposite.

April, 2000: Cooper and TTP are the subject of a moderately negative article in The Kansas City Star newspaper [Comments: Within the article Cooper responds to questions concerning his involvement with Truly Special by saying he took the president position weeks before the legal complaint was filed and was unaware of the company’s legal problems. However, within that complaint it is stated, “Defendant Cooper is an individual who was President of Truly Special, Inc. during the time the acts alleged in paragraph eight occurred.” It further states, in paragraph eight, that “…the following acts and practices by Defendants Cooper and (co-defendant) were deceptive and/or unconscionable and violate the Kansas Consumer Protection Act….” Cooper’s signature appears at the end of the Judgment.] FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Allegations are just that, and are often more misleading than any actions of the defendants. This is why it also states in that document that the defendants specifically DENY ALL ALLEGATIONS made herein, and that NO ADMISSIONS are made as part of agreeing to such an order.

REBUTTAL: Another attempt to deflect attention from the point, which has to do with the timing, not the validity of the accusations. Revisit the Rebuttal to the 1993/1994 Response above. Based on this evidence and the above assertions in the legal complaint, Cooper’s claim of ignorance and innocence regarding the 1994 action seems dubious – and curiously ignored in the response.

April, 2000: The Criminal Division of the IRS demands the latest TTP member database from My Tax Man, which they supply. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Again, we have reason to believe that a vindictive Gleason / “My Tax Man” instigated contact with the IRS with the intent to disrupt our business. As TTP was plaintiff in a suit against Gleason, he may have asked for these demands to be made of him so that he would not violate or compound the litigation. So, this may or may not have happened, but as Gleason had no access to TTP databases for almost two years, it is largely irrelevant.

REBUTTAL: I wonder if having your records sent, by demand, to the IRS is “largely irrelevant” to the 20,933 distributors they allegedly had two years earlier. Also, note the response essentially says this statement is “false” because it “may or may not have happened.” I hope who ever wrote this for Cooper is not a defense attorney.

May, 2000: W. Bradford Murray sues TTP in Federal court for copyright infringement claiming much of the tax advise in the new Tax Relief System was taken verbatim from his work. The company claims it acquired the rights legally through an intermediary. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – TTP has never seen any work published by Bradford, and would not even know who he is, other than being told by Botkin that he and his former partner, Bradford have an ongoing conflict as to who really authored or owns Botkin’s workbook titled “Tax Advantages in the 1990s.” Bradford’s suit against TTP has been dismissed.

REBUTTAL: This one’s strange. My statement is only two sentences. The first one describes the negative event, the second one offers TTP a defense. The response confirms the negative event (Murray did sue TTP), and denies the defense. The Murray suit would have been dismissed after my article was written.

May, 2000: The KS AG’s office reports 27 formal complaints have been filed against Renaissance, AIM and TTP dating back to 1995. Fourteen are still open (unresolved). FALSE
ONLY PART-TRUE – These “formal complaints” consist of “letters” asking for unreasonable refunds, generally following many months (or years) of tax services provided, and often following earning thousands in commissions and bonuses. Several were prompted by Gleason/Botkin fans who quit TTP to work with Gleason/Botkin in new competitive ventures. With over 80,000 customers in three years, over 5,000 reasonable requests for refunds were met with immediate refunds by TTP over this same period, and only 27 complaints. That is less than .0003 (3/10,000ths) of sales!

REBUTTAL: Most of the 27 complaints I am aware of would have taken place before Gleason or Botkin left. There were “several” others after they left (over 100 actually), which would be in addition to the 27. What’s more, TTP’s VP of Operations confirmed in court that they only had about 30,000 customers/IMAs in June of 2000. So 5,000 refund requests would be 16.7% of total sales. How ever you cut it, five thousand refund requests over four years is not good. The main point here is actually magnified by the response – if you are going to gladly pay refunds to 5,000 people, why not 5,027 and save an Attorney General investigation?

[Comments: The TTP spin from the field was that this was par for the MLM course. Not true. This is, relatively speaking, a substantially high number of complaints for a five year old company.] FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – Clements is totally wrong on this one. We have one of the lowest complaint/customer ratios in the history of sales. As a comparison, we have been told that the local Walmart store in Topeka currently has over 100 complaints from just the one local store. Nationwide, all companies have a small percentage of people (3/10,000ths) that nothing seems to satisfy, no matter how hard you try.

REBUTTAL: You’ve got to be kidding. In the history of sales? All sales? Hyperbole aside, comparing the complaints at a local Walmart to an MLM company isn’t exactly apples to apples. A WalMart in any major city likely has more customers in one month than TTP has in a typical year. A better comparison would be to other MLM companies, and 27 is a very high number, relatively speaking.

June, 2000: In an internal IRS newsletter within an article titled “Tax Alchemy” they warn, “In a multilevel marketing scheme, unsuspecting investors may be told they can convert their personal expenses into home business deductions by selling the tax shelter program to their friends.” This is the first public hint that there is an IRS investigation of TTP. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – That internal newsletter does not refer to TTP, and the IRS may well be investigating dozens of investment/tax schemes at any time. TTP is not a marketing scheme and we do not have investors in our MLM marketing efforts. We do have customers and IMAs that benefit from our services and programs.

REBUTTAL: Who ever produced these responses obviously didn’t read carefully enough. I clearly said that the IRS document referred to a “multilevel” marketing scheme which sold tax shelter programs. I am aware of only one such company in June of 2000 – The Tax People. It should also be obvious that the IRS document was using the term “investors” as a general term for those investing in their business, not a security.

July, 2000: TTP now claims to have over 50,000 representatives. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – We had over 50,000 customers (now over 80,000), some of which are also IMAs.

REBUTTAL: It’s almost funny (almost) to hear how reps bragged about the 50,000 IMA’s they had amassed, but when they need to show in court a high customer-to-IMA ratio (thus demonstrating that IMAs weren’t the only one’s buying the product) suddenly only 5,000 we IMA’s and the rest were retail customers. If they did have 50,000 people paying for the monthly service (what ever you want to call them) in July of 2000, then my statement was TRUE (as the response just confirms). And if they had 30,000 in June of 2000, it now looks like my figure may have been much higher than the actual figure (there’s no way they brought in 20,000 new people in the month of July alone). The TRO and federal raids occurred in October, so are they suggesting 50,000 new members came in from July 1st (when they now claim there were 30,000) through September (80,000)? 

August, 2000: The North Carolina Attorney General advises Cooper that TTP is an illegal pyramid and they should stop soliciting NC residents. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – An employee of the North Carolina AG office sent us a letter concerning a “fax blast” made by an IMA that went to a state facility, which is unlawful in NC. They advised us in that letter to C&D all fax blasts. We notified the entire field to C&D any fax or e-mail blast, and received written conformation from the NC AG office that the issue was resolved and no further investigation was planned.

REBUTTAL: According to court documents, on August 31st, 2000 Michael F. Easley of the Consumer Protection Section of the North Carolina Attorney General’s office wrote to Michael Cooper and advised him that “we have received information concerning The Tax People.net. Based on verbal descriptions [emphasis mine] and written material, we have made a determination that TTP is an illegal pyramid scheme… You are to immediately cease soliciting North Carolina residents for The Tax People.net…” A subsequent letter from the NC AG’s office specifically states that no further investigation is underway as it is their policy to not pursue a company under federal investigation until those proceedings have been concluded. The letter further stated that NC’s inaction does not mean they believe TTP is in compliance with NC law.

September, 2000: Cooper and TTP are the subject of a harsher, although not entirely negative article in the New York Times. The article is primarily critical of the tax strategies taught by TTP. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – The reporter in this instance told several of us he thought “TTP is a brilliant method of mass merchandising tax planning and services to the public.” He made many positive comments that were not in his biased article.

REBUTTAL: Fine. But my statement was about the article, which the response, once again, validates.

September, 2000: TTP is the subject of discussion during a segment of The O’Reilly Factor, a Fox News television program. An ex-IRS commissioner is also part of the on-air discussion. The lone TTP representative (not Cooper) spends most of the ten minute segment deflecting accusations of pyramiding and defending their tax strategies. [Comment: The segment ended on it’s only positive note with the host suggesting TTP’s $40 per month fee for audit protection “sounds like a good deal.” However, Mr. O’Reilly apparently didn’t have a calculator handy. More on this in the final commentary.] FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – TTP was the subject of TWO national news broadcasts on FOX. In the first, the commentator tried to set up a confrontation between Steve Kassel and a former IRS commissioner. He not only failed to create the confrontation, but the commissioner did end up saying it sounded like a good deal. In the follow up broadcast a few days later, Mike Cooper was simply asked to explain the benefits of TTP, which he did in a positive manner.

REBUTTAL: I’m confused as to why the person writing these responses continuously writes “FALSE” after my statements then provides a response that confirms the statement. Yes, there was a Fox News program, and the host was confrontational. However, the former IRS commissioner did not say TTP sounded like a good deal, he was specifically referring only to the too brief description he was given regarding the $40 per month audit protection service.

October, 2000: The North Dakota securities commissioner issues a cease and desist order to halt “recent” offers of stock in Renaissance/TTP to at least one NC resident as an incentive to keep them participating. [Comment: Unbelievable.] FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – The has never been any stock offers in TTP other than C2000 described earlier. No stock has been ”recently” offered in North Dakota or anywhere else for any reason. This unfounded action by North Dakota is under investigation and resolution at this time.

REBUTTAL: Denying the allegation does not make my statement “FALSE.” In fact, yes, once again the response confirms the statement. While TTP may eventually be vindicated, that doesn’t change the fact that North Dakota took the action.

October, 2000: The TTP home office is raided by the Criminal Division of the IRS as well as the US Postal Inspection Service. TRUE

ONLY PART-TRUE – The offices were raided as part of an ongoing investigation. No charges have been filed, and we expect to be fully vindicated at the completion of the investigation.

REBUTTAL: It’s very likely that no charges have been filed because the feds are waiting to see what happens with the state action. You can’t close down a company that’s closed down. Doesn’t that make sense?

October, 2000: The Kansas AG’s office receives inquiries about it’s investigation of TTP by 8 other states, including California and Florida, as well as from the SEC and FTC. TRUE/FALSE?

ONLY PART-TRUE – We understand the AGs have weekly conference calls to share information, just as we do. With all the growth and recent headlines we have generated, we would be surprised if only eight other states requested information.

REBUTTAL: This information came directly from the AG’s office. And yes, I’m surprised it’s only eight as well.

October, 2000: TTP agrees to a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) requiring them to shut down their web site, halt all new sales and enrollment of new reps, and discontinue the paying of commissions and bonuses. The company’s assets are frozen, although the order does allow for the ongoing fulfillment of various services, such as audit protection and tax advice, and the payment of basic operating expenses. [Comment: This is a state action and it separate from the federal investigations.] TRUE

ONLY PART-TRUE – The only option was to agree, or to stop ALL tax services, audit intervention, etc. We currently provide all tax services, advice, and audit intervention as normal to all customers pending the resumption of new sales activities in the near future.

December 11th, 2000: A hearing will take place to decide the resolution to the TRO. Either it will be lifted, modified, or the company will be permanently enjoined from doing further business. FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – The hearing is scheduled for Feb 12th, at which time we expect the facts, rather than opinions and allegations to speak for themselves, and we hope to be fully vindicated at that time with the voluntary Temporary Restraining Order being lifted so we can resume business as usual.

REBUTTAL: Of course, this article was written previous to the original hearing date of December 12th. The hearing was postponed to February 12th, and the ruling is now scheduled for sometime after March 16th.

In the KS AG’s Petition to the court (to be decided upon December 11th), there are several key statements. A listing and analysis of each follows: FALSE

ONLY PART-TRUE – The petition contains opinions and allegations of a handful of people. Their statements of opinion are just that, and our expert opinions will dramatically differ from theirs. The additional text of this message consisted of Clements’ biased opinions of allegations pending in this legal action, and cannot be commented upon. However, as he only saw fit to share partial truths, lies, and distortions earlier, you judge the value of his slanted, one-sided conclusions.

REBUTTAL: I blew it on two dates, one corporate title, and I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt on the status of Aunt Myra’s in 1994 and the “prepaid” example of stock value. Other than that, not only does every word of my “Case Study” stand up to scrutiny, the respondent essentially confirmed 16 out of 30 allegedly “false” statements!

What is most curious is that this chronology section of the Case Study was not the meat of the article. The second half dealt with the specifics of the allegations and why those allegations exist. My commentary was not based on just opinion, but decades of legal precedent and personal experience. I think the analysis stands on it’s own merits. The entire article, including the half that was avoided in this response, can be viewed at www.marketwaveinc.com.

What I am most critical of, more than anything, is the “partial truths and distortions” (which I’m so ironically accused of) that I feel Michael Cooper and others in a leadership role have been perpetrating on TTP loyalist who are patiently awaiting the outcome of the TRO hearing (and probably getting pretty tired of hearing “it’s almost over.”) What they are not being made fully aware of is that:

1. The hearing regarding the TRO is only the first step in the state’s action. If the TRO is lifted the state then has the ability to, and very likely will, take their case to a jury trail. This is the same right Cooper has should he not prevail in the TRO hearing. In other words, all the hoopla over “vindication” and “getting back to business” after the judges decision is sadly misguided. The state action alone could take months, or even years, to finally resolve.

2. There is still two federal investigations to contend with. Even if the TRO is lifted (a possibility) and the state declines to pursue the action further (highly unlikely), there is still a pyramid investigation by the US Postal Inspector’s office (they were part of the October raid), and a criminal investigation by the IRS.

3. It was extremely unlikely that the judge’s decision regarding the TRO would take place immediately following the conclusion of the hearing, as Cooper and others assured followers was the case. This is not The People’s Court where the judge comes back after a commercial break and makes a ruling. It is routine for there to be several days, if not weeks, before a final decision is made in hearings such as this. Why did Cooper, for weeks previous to the hearing, continually imply to his followers that the conclusion of the hearing would be the conclusion of the TRO? Not only did he suggest this, he has even stated publicly that they felt the state’s case was so poor they could have asked for a judgment without even posting a defense. However, defense attorney’s routinely request a “motion to dismiss” after the conclusion of the prosecution’s case – just as they did in this case! And the motion was denied! Wasn’t Cooper notified of this?

4. The previous action by the KS AG against Cooper when he was the President of Truly Special was due to his actions. He was not an innocent bystander.
Here are some excerpts from the two recorded presentations made by Cooper. These first ones are from the live conference call.

“You approach somebody about this business – very simple proposition to ask them one question: ‘Would you invest $100 in your business that has the potential of making you $500 a day, over $100,000 per year?’ The typical response is, Well, what is it? And my response has been, regardless of what it is, if there is a viable, legitimate, honorable business that cost $100 to invest in that could make you $100,000 per year, would you put your $100 up? The next thing I ask is, ‘Could you find two people that would do the same? Could you find two people who’d invest $100 in their financial future, no other requirements, monthly requirements, none of that garbage – put in $100, find two people to do the same thing.”

Note the common usage of the term “invest” and the complete void of any reference to a product. In fact, he asks if you would pay $100 for something to make $100,000 “regardless of what it is.” Sounds a lot like the “horse manure” claim, doesn’t it? And yes, he was knocking those companies that have monthly volume requirements, like TTP. He went on to say that Truly Special had:

“No ongoing monthly production requirements, no check qualification requirements, all the things people dislike about a program.”

Next, he acknowledges, in a positive manner, a “top” distributor who has “multiple business centers.” He states, “There is the opportunity to qualify multiple business centers and a lot of people are doing that… a lot of people start with 3 or 7 business centers.” Cooper then introduces “Eric” who claims to have “come in with” seven business centers (making a $100 product purchase for each).

If there’s any doubt left, here’s a quote from the recording of the live meeting:

“I’d venture to say if I was willing to pay you 500 bucks to get me two apps tonight – find me two people that would be willing to put $100 into a business to make $500 a day and you could make your first 500 just that quick – would I get two apps tonight? For 500 bucks wouldn’t you find two of your friends that want to make some money?… Next month your two find two people (who find two, and so on)… as 64 turns into 128, you’ll get about three payouts that month.”

He then describes a $100 autoship system that only deducts $100 (for product) from the distributor’s next check when needed to qualify for another “pay cycle” (as opposed to buying them because they actually want the product). He goes on to state that reps use this system so as to “never miss a pay check.”

And remember, this is all coming from a man who turned state’s evidence against the owners of American Gold Eagle which was declared an illegal pyramid for essentially emphasizing the sale of business centers rather than product. Again, not that Cooper was responsible for that then, but certainly he should have known not to do it with Truly Special. And after two such experiences, why would he allow the promotion of Founder’s Packs to facilitate acquiring more business centers?

Was Michael Cooper really unaware of the legal vulnerability of American Gold Eagle when he first joined it? Was he really unaware of the legal vulnerability of Truly Special when he first took over? Was he really unaware of the legal vulnerability of Renaissance/The Tax People the first four-plus years he was in control of it?

You be the judge.

The Coming MLM Boom!

By Len Clements © 2002

It seems the network marketing, or MLM, industry has been on the verge of an “explosion” for about as long as, well, there has been an network marketing industry.  Certainly there have been growth spurts in popularity over the years, but the business just never really – exploded, at least for any sustained period of time.  Even those occasional growth pops were always followed by slumps in the MLM economy.  Yet, throughout it’s history, even in the midst of those slumps, and especially over the last two decades, many of those who would promote it would tell us that, soon, the network marketing industry is going to, dare i say it again… EXPLODE!  Ah, if I only had a dollar for every time I’ve heard any derivative of the word “explode” as it relates to network marketing I’d be a wealthy man.  About as wealthy as I’d be if I got a dollar for every time an MLM distributor used the term “revolutionary,” but that’s another subject.

The various promoters of this alleged upcoming MLM boom have always had at least one good reason for believing their claim.  It wasn’t entirely on hype. Nothing more than the monumental and numerous advantages that network marketing offers to those who want to start a home based business certainly should have been reason enough to think that, soon, the masses are going to discover those advantages and flock to MLM en mass.  We could surely forgive them for their optimistic delusion.

As history has shown us in many industries, the merits of a product alone won’t necessarily sell it.  When Ruth Stafford Peale said “find a need and fill it”, she was close.  Personally, I’d rather find a “want” and fill it.  Obviously, people would be more likely to obtain something they want as oppose to need, and they’ve not flocked to network marketing en mass for no other reason than they simply can’t want something they neither 

understand nor even know exists!  There is overwhelming evidence that the reason this industry stands at a little over 7 million distributors is because, for the most part, those 7 million network marketers are all pitching their opportunities – to each other.  This has created a great ignorance about network marketing among most Americans.  And I use the word “ignorance” deliberately here, which does not mean unintelligent.  Ignor-ance means simply, to ignore readily available information.  And the vast majority of the U.S. population has, at least up until now, utterly ignored network marketing not only due to a lack of want, but a lack of knowledge as to it’s benefits, or that it even exists.

But that is all about to change… forever.

For the first time in network marketing history, there are solid, logical, verifiable, reasons to believe in an upcoming network marketing boom.  In fact, there are eight reasons, any one of which could result in a significant expansion of network marketing in the U.S. over the next few years, and these eight factors will soon by overlaying, one on top of the other, creating the “perfect storm” so to speak, where we have the convergence of several powerful economic, demographic, and psychological factors all hitting at the exact same time and place in network marketing history.  Finally, we can make claim to an upcoming MLM explosion and it won’t be just wishful thinking.  It absolutely will happen, and here’s why:

Reason #1:  The Economy

I have always had the belief that the condition of the U.S. economy did influence the condition of network marketing, somewhat, but not significantly.  I based that belief on the simple conclusion that there was never an economy where people didn’t want more money and more free time.  In fact, a few months ago I set out to write an article debunking this age old assumption that bad economic conditions favor network marketing.  I began to really do some digging to find as much evidence as I could to support my contrarian position.  And what I soon discovered was,  I was wrong.  The fact that one of the strongest growth phases in network marketing history, which occurred between 1990 to ’92, also coincided with the last economic recession should have been a clue.  But there was so much more.

First, an analysis of unemployment rates over the decades is key here.  After all, the want for network marketing is created by the desire for alternative sources of income, and income sources that we have control over.  And when we compare the popularity trends of network marketing to unemployment rates, on a semi-decade basis, there are some intriguing and very exciting revelations.

Although multilevel marketing existed as far back as 1936, for all intents and purposed MLM really began in earnest in the 1950s.  So let’s start there.  Now, tracking MLM popularity trends is somewhat subjective, but surely there would be no argument that network marketing was far more popular in the second half of the 50’s than the first.  Not a single company of consequence launched from 1950 to 1955, however industry giants Shaklee, NeoLife, and Amway all came into existence from 1956 to 1959.  The unemployment rate the first have of the decade averaged 4%, and was the second lowest in U.S. history in 1953 at 2.9% (only during WWII was it ever lower).  However, it averaged 5.3% the second half of the decade reaching it’s highest level since the Great Depression in 1958 at 6.8%.  Although the difference may seem small from a statistical standpoint, translated into todays numbers that would mean almost 6 million more people becoming unemployed between 1953 to ’58.

The first half of the 1960’s all types of direct sales continued to flourish with the launch of Mary Kay Cosmetics in 1963, and companies such as Avon, Fuller Brush and Tupperware all achieving momentum.  Although the industry continued to grow from ’65 to ’69, it was not nearly at the same pace with no new major company launches taking place.  The unemployment rate the first half of the decade was significanly higher than the second half when 2-and-a-half million unemployed people went back to work.

Let’s jump ahead to the 1980’s.  Again, few MLM veterans would disagree that the first half of this decade 

definitely outperformed the second.  Although there were about as many company launches in each half of the decade, there are actually more companies that launched during the first half that are still in business today than during the second.  While network marketing flourished from 1980 to ’85, the rest of the decade saw some of the worst fiasco in network marketing history.  Also, another indicator of MLM economic conditions is the number of legal actions.  During industry slumps companies and distributors tend to be more aggressive and take greater risks.  The number of law suits almost doubled during the second half of the 80’s compared to the first.  And, while network marketing was thriving the first half of the 80’s, unemployment continued to rise.  In fact, in 1982 it was at it’s highest level in 40 years at 9.7%.  During the second half MLM slump unemployment dropped considerably, and by the end of the decade the number of those out of work was almost half of what it was at the beginning of the decade.

The 1990’s saw perhaps the clearest distinction between halves of any decade with more major company launches and more companies going into momentum than any other time in history.  There was also more wealth being created by way of MLM from 1990 to 1994 than any other 5 year period in network marketing history.  The second half, as many of you probably still remember, wasn’t exactly the best of times for network marketing.  In fact, if there ever was such thing as an MLM recession, we had one from about 1996 through 1999.  Why?  One reason may have been the very high unemployment rate from 1990 to ’94, and the sharp drop during the second half of the decade where it hit a 30 year low at 4.2% in 1999.

The only exception to this half-century long pattern is the 1970’s, but that was an exceptional decade.  Remember, the last half of the 60’s industry growth slowed as unemployment dropped to a post-war low.  During the first half of the 70’s network marketing started rocking again as unemployment rates jumped.  Unfortunately, all that rocking started rocking some boats, and the result was over five times as many MLM related law suits from 1970 to 1974 than all of the 50’s and 60’s combined.  These included landmark cases involving Koscot, Bestline, Holiday Magic, Culture Farms, and others, and in 1975, there was a federal action which essentially questioned the legality of network marketing in general.  Fortunately, one company, Amway, had the financial ability to defend themselves, and in essence, the entire multilevel marketing industry.  This case lasted until late 1979 when the court eventually ruled in favor of Amway and as a result there was, for the first time, a clear delineation between illegal pyramids and legitimate network marketing companies.  So, obviously, there was a pretty dark cloud hanging over the industry the last half of the 70’s and there wasn’t a lot of expansion in spite of the even higher unemployment rate.

The last, and arguably greatest MLM growth phase began in 1990, the same year we went into our last economic recession.  And, again, from 1980 to ’84 were boom years for network marketing and we experienced recessions in 1980, part of ’81 and most of ’82.  Nineteen-seventy to ’74 were also boom years, and our economy was in recession almost all of 1970, and 1974.  Remember how the last half of the 50’s and into the early 60’s were years of great MLM expansion?  We were in recession from ’57 to ’58 and most of 1960.  In deed, every severe economic downturn in the last 50 years has been during, or immediately preceded every period of network marketing expansion.

We’re not done yet.  According to figures supplied by the Direct Selling Association, not all, but most of which is made up of network marketing companies, U.S. sales increased from 1990 to 1992 by an annual average of 9.25 percent.  That was during our last recession.  From 1997 to 2000, at the peak of our last economic boom, annual sales within the direct selling industry increased by a little more than half as much.  Clearly, the condition of our national economy absolutely does effect the condition of the network marketing industry. 

So where does this lead us?  Well, as I write this it’s early 2002 and we are in a recession, and have been for several months.  Most recessions last around 12-18 months, but that doesn’t mean that when a recession is over, so is a slumping economy, or high unemployment rates.  And again, it’s rising unemployment rates that are most closely tied to rising interest in network marketing.  Here’s a rather remarkable fact – we’ve had eight recessions in the last 50 years, and during the 12 months immediately after the end of the recession the unemployment rate went up!  Every time.  What’s more, most economic experts today are predicting a much slower recovery than that which followed previous downturns, followed by volatile economic swings for the next several years.

And remember, we’re only on reason number one.  Let’s move on to what I feel is an even more powerful reason to believe in a coming network marketing explosion.

Reason #2: Demographics

Although the network marketing industry offers almost every conceivable product or service imaginable, most product lines are made up primarily of personal care products, diet, and health related products.  These are all products that would be of most interest to again baby boomers.  Now, this concept of what Dr. Ken Dychtwald refers to as the “Age Wave” in his book of the same name, is certainly not a new concept as it relates to network marketing.  Purveyors of personal and health care products have been emphasizing this concept for several years now.  But it does warrant a brief overview.

Baby Boomers are those born from the years of 1946 to 1964.  The reason for this baby boom doesn’t need a lot of explanation.  During the great depression, immediately followed by WWII, folk just weren’t economically, psychologically, or geographically able to make a lot of babies.  So, once WWII was over they had some catching up to do – and they did.  There were about 76 million babies born during this 18 year period, which at the time accounted for almost one-third of the entire U.S. population.  This explains why diaper and baby food companies flourished in the later 40’s and early 50’s, or why rock&roll records and drive ins were so popular in the mid- to late 50’s.  It also explains why more grade schools were built in the early 60’s and more college campuses were built in the later 60’s than any other time in our history.  Think back to the 70’s and early 80’s.  How many athletic clubs, health stores, or ads for energy or weight loss products did you see? Very few.  Today, they’re everywhere!  Why?  Because most of those 76 million people are now in their 40’s and 50’s.  You can see exactly where this giant bubble in the population is at any moment in time by simply looking at what products are most popular.  And when in comes to charting the market size for what most network marketing companies offer, we’re not even half way up the curve yet!  The market for products that will make us look and feel younger is going to continue to expand for at least another 25 years, and will expand most dramatically over the next 5 to 10 years where some predict it will more than double.

But this baby boom is exciting for another completely different reason.  The age of contractual consent in most states in 18, that’s why virtually all network marketing companies require distributors to be at least 18 years old.  Well, guess what happened about 25 years after the baby boom?  Those 76 million baby boomers had about 75 million babies.  And about 41 million of them will turn 18 over the next 7 years.  At no other time in history, other than the original baby boom itself, have this many people been added to the body of eligible MLM prospects in this short a period of time.

Of course, the number of people eligible to join is not as important as the number actually joining.  So, let’s take another look at the annual survey of the direct selling industry conducting by the DSA.  According to their analysis, there was a net gain of direct sellers of 400,000 from 1997 to 98.  By “net” I mean 400,000 more joined than quit.  There was a 600,000 net gain from ’98 to ’99, and a 700,000 distributor gain from ’99 to 2000.  Not only is the number increasing, but the rate of increase is increasing, which is one of the indicators of impending momentum. However, if we did nothing more than take this 700,000 annual growth rate of direct sellers, figure about 470,000 are network marketers, assume the rate of increase never goes any higher, and extend that forward for another ten years, we end up with 4.7 million additional network marketers.  To put that in perspective, it took us over 50 years to get to 7.5 million distributors, and we’re conservatively projected to add another 4.7 million in just the next ten years, which means, by the way, your average downline will be 37% larger – and this isn’t even factoring in any of the things were discussing here that will cause this growth rate to increase!  This is just assuming everything stays the same.

And as far as a demographic reason for believing in an upcoming MLM boom, these aren’t even the best ones!  Check this out:

According to Gallup Polls, the average age of all Americans when they first decide to invest in a residual income producing vehicle, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, or perhaps in a business venture, is 42.  The average age when we invest the most into such devices is 47.  If we were to then chart on a graph the number of 42 to 47 year olds in the U.S. we’d find that starting about 1988 the line begins to point upward at almost a 45º angle as the boomers started turning 42 – and that line continues to rise at a level never before seen in history all the way to the year 2009.  We’re barely past the half way point of that upward curve!

Does this really benefit us, as network marketers?  Are 40-somethings more open to MLM opportunities?  Well, the average American is 36 years old.  According to a Marketwave survey of over 6,000 network marketers from 1990 to 2000, the average network marketer is 38.6, and that number has consistently risen over the years of the survey.  Other MLM surveys have found the average age to be almost 40.  An exceptional number of those over 40 do participate in network marketing, and this segment of the population which is most ready, willing and able to invest in a residual income generating business venture is going to continue to increase dramatically for another seven years!

Reason #3:  Wall Street

Securities investors are, for the most part, a pretty savvy group of people.  Obviously there are a lot of exceptions, but generally, these are men and women who research and analyze public companies in an effort to try to determine which ones have the strongest growth potential.  Based on their due diligence they eventually invest their funds in companies who’s growth they expect to go up.  These are people who are, in general, pretty adept at knowing what signals to look for that might indicate an upcoming boom.  So, what do they see when they turn their magnifying glass on network marketing companies? Well, first let’s take a look at what they’ve seen.

There are over 20 publicly traded network marketing companies, but the bottom third or so are so small and trade so infrequently they’re really meaningless as far as overall industry trends, so let’s focus on the top 12.  These are the larger, well established companies.  Well, if you were to chart their stock price over the last 5 years, starting December 1996, in almost every case you’d see a line that looks a lot like the path of an airplane — coming in for a landing.  With very few exceptions, MLM company stock values have flattened out at their all time lows and stayed there for about two to three years.  Clearly, Wall Street wasn’t impressed with network marketing’s growth potential the last half of the 90’s 

So, what do they see now?  Well, the S&P 500, an index that gauges the overall condition of the stock market, reached it’s peak in September of 2000.  By mid-December 2001 it was down by 23%.  However, over the exact same period of time our index of the top 12 network marketing companies was UP by 7.3%.  And again, this is from a basket of stocks that, for the most part, haven’t budged upwards in years.  And now, all of a sudden, in just the last 12 months these network marketing companies are outperforming the overall stock market by over thirty percent.  Go to your favorite investment web site is and take a look at the stock charts of these companies.  What you’ll see is than plane coming in for a landing, taxying across the bottom of the chart, and then, right at the end – they’re just starting to take off again.

So don’t just take my word for it.  There are a few thousand other trend analysts out there that seem to also be very optimistic about the future growth potential of this industry.

Reason #4: Supply and Demand 

I read an article a few years ago that described how network marketing was “booming.”  The author validated this claim by siting the huge growth in the number of MLM companies.  Of course, anyone who got even a C- in Economics 101 could tell you that an industry booms when the demand for it’s product dramatically increases.  In deed, when there is only a tremendous increase in supply, this often times results in an industry slump.  And sure enough, during this massive proliferation of MLM companies the last half of the 90’s, which there very definitely was, we had a pretty tough industry slump.

A very prominent MLM publication published a survey they had conducted from 1994 to 1997 where they polled all the major MLM company software providers to try to determine how many MLM companies were launching in each of these years.  They found that in 1994 there were about 700.  In ’95 over 1,000.  There were about 1,400 company launches in 1996, and 1,800 in 1997.  These are not cumulative totals, this is each year.  And there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to show that there were about as many start ups in 1998 and 1999.  What’s even more troubling is that those in the software businesses estimate that perhaps half of all MLM start ups don’t go to the major software houses, but rather hire in house programmers.  Do you understand what that means?  It’s possible that the actual number of start ups could have been double these numbers.  As many as 13,000 network marketing companies may have launched from 1994 through 1999, and at least as many as 8,000, yet we only had a net gain of about 600 companies, from 900 to 1,500.  For many years distributors for older, mature network marketing companies often warned prospects away from start ups with the claim that 95% of all MLM companies fail in the first two years.  Up to this point, it was really just a scare tactic based on a wild guess.  However, what this survey inadvertently did was verify the figure!

Yet, during this same period, based on a consensus of various educated sources including the DSA, the number of network marketing distributors in the U.S., during the last half of the 90’s, only increased from about 5 million to 7.5 million.  That means the number of distributors went up about 50%, but the number of companies increased by three times that much!  If you do the math, you’ll discover that this means the average distributor’s downline shrunk by 40%.  There is no question that the supply of MLM opportunities was far exceeding demand the last half of the 90’s.

So, what’s the good news?  Well, some very encouraging things began to happen in the year 2000, not the least of which is, it seems would be MLM company owners finally began to realize that starting a network marketing company in the U.S. market was an entrepreneurial death wish!  Also, more and more of those considering starting MLM companies are coming to realize that it really defeats the whole purpose of getting involved in network marketing – they’re essentially creating for themselves a 12 hour a day J-O-B.  Instead, they could apply their resources to building an organization in an already well established, stable network marketing program and make just as much, if not more money with far less effort, and fraction of the responsibility and risk.  And understand, this isn’t just my assumption.  I’ve been a consultant to start up companies, more of a Devil’s advocate for hire, actually, since 1992.  So, not only from my own consulting experience, but by scanning the ads in all of the various MLM publications, interviewing other consultants, trainers, and suppliers, visiting the on-line MLM message boards, reading the abundance of MLM related spam I receive, and interviewing literally hundreds of prospects and distributors every year, it’s very clear that the number of start up network marketing companies has declined significantly since the beginning of 2000.

This fact, along with the increasing number of company mergers and acquisitions that are taking place each year, will only make the industry stronger.  The last half of the 90’s the whole industry was groaning under the weight of this massive overload of MLM companies.  As more and more companies entered the market the national distributor base was spread thinner and thinner.  The result was smaller downlines, higher attrition, and generally fewer success stories.  But, think about it.  If there were just as many distributors, but half as many companies, the average downline would be twice as big.  I’m not suggesting the number of companies will contract to half, but any reduction in supply will certainly help spur an increase in demand as more and more distributors are condensed into common downlines, which will then increase the number of those getting into profit, and those reaching their income goals.  The more success stories we have, the more motivation and less resistance we have to building our downlines even larger.  Even larger downlines mean even greater motivation, even lesser resistance, resulting in even larger downlines – and the cycle continues upward, rather than down or flat as it has in the past.

Reason #5:  New Blood

Almost every network marketing company today would like to think, and most claim, they are about to go into momentum.  Momentum, as it applies to network marketing, is the stage in a company’s growth cycle where sales volume begins to increase geometrically and the company doubles, triples, perhaps even quadruples in size in a relatively short period of time.  Most momentum phases last about 6 to 24 months.  Much like buying a stock low right before it goes up in price, most distributors want to attach themselves to a pre-momentum company right before it explodes.  Thus, practically every distributor will try to make a case that their company is “about to go into momentum.”  How do they know?  Eh, they don’t.  No one every really knows exactly when momentum phases kick in.  Some MLM theorists have claimed it commences at a certain sales volume, or around a certain number of year in business.  Yet, the exceptions far outnumber the rule.  But much like stock picking, we can look for clues – for historical trends and patterns to help us make better guesses.  And if we go back and study every major post-momentum company and analyze what happened right before they went into momentum, there is a common event.  Although they each may have accomplished this in different ways, every momentum phase in MLM history was facilitated by massive numbers of people moving into the opportunity, either as reps or customers, who have never been involved in network marketing before.  No company has ever went into a momentum phase by this ebb and flow distributors roaming from company to company.  Momentum is caused by a massive injection of new blood.

Where is this new blood going to come from?  How are we going to expose massive numbers of people to our products and opportunities that we’ve never been able to reach in the past?  Of course, from… how many you saw this coming?… the internet.

Now, some of you may be thinking, yeah, but the internet’s been around for years.  Where is all this new blood?  Well, the internet may have been around in 1990, but it didn’t go into it’s own momentum phase until after 1995 when only 14% of Americans used the internet.  By 1998 that number had almost tripled.  Today it’s over 60% and many predict that virtually all of Americans will be using the internet in some capacity by the year 2010.  And it wasn’t until around 1997 or so that the network marketing industry really began to use, or a better term might be “abuse” the internet.  Certainly there are exceptions to this, but for the most part MLMers got a little over zealous in their utilization of this amazing new technology.  Rather that use it to help us build our downlines and sell our products, it was, in way too many cases, used in an attempt to have it build our downlines for us.  The result was, in some cases, big recruiting numbers, but very little sales volume and overwhelming attrition.  The reason is obvious.  People get into network marketing with the goal of quitting their jobs and doing this for a living.  In other words, they are potentially making a career choice.  That’s a pretty serious decision, isn’t it?  Well, how serious could a prospect have taken this decision when they only based it on a few pretty pictures and some jazzy words on a web site?

The internet was also abused in other ways.  Like so many other dot.coms, there were a lot of company failures.  Some were ugly, miserable failures.  There were numerous legal abuses as well resulting in several well publisized closures.  The network marketing industry painfully cut it’s internet teeth from about 1997 to early 2000.  And now, as this shake out comes to an end and the smoke clears, what is just beginning to emerge are the remaining responsible, visionary companies that knew all along that the awesome power of the internet was not in having it do all the work for us, but rather having it help us present our products and opportunities faster, less expensively, and to far, far greater numbers of people.  New people, who’ve never been exposed to network marketing before.  They’re are our future superstars – our future MLM leaders.

The internet is a sales, training and recruiting tool with unimaginable potential that we are only just now beginning to effectively and intelligently utilize, and it’s an industry itself that looks to expand by 100 million users domestically over the next ten years.  And as this happens, the network marketing industry will soon go into momentum the same way everyone of it’s post-momentum companies did so – by a mountainous wave of new prospects and within it these future leaders.  They say a rising tide raises all boats, and in this case, this tidal wave could even cause an unprecedented event in network marketing history – the secondary momentum phase, where large, post-momentum companies actually achieve momentum again!

But the internet isn’t the only reason why I believe we’re on the verge of massive “outer circle” recognition.  There’s another reason that’s so compelling I’m making it a reason unto itself.

Reason #6:  Positive Media Exposure

Radio, television, magazines and newspapers all exist primarily, if not in some cases exclusively, on advertising dollars.  Network marketing is an industry that, for the most part, doesn’t advertise in the mainstream media.  After all, we’re a “word of mouth” business.  So not only has the media had no financial incentive to promote MLM, it actually has a financial inceptive not to.  Now, I’m not suggesting there’s some grand conspiracy among these various media to hold network marketing down, but there certainly has been a consistent pattern of negative expose’s of MLM companies over the years, some certainly deserving, some not, but curiously, very few corporate or individual success stories, in spite of the huge number of them to choose from.

Well, that too is changing.  The mainstream media is just now discovering how to cash in on network marketing without ad revenue.  The first big step in this direction was back in 1994 when Success magazine, a well respected newsstand business magazine, featured a front cover montage of network marketing companies and a lengthy and extremely positive feature article about our industry.  Sure, the companies that knew they were going to be mentioned did break from tradition and ran display ads, but that’s not where Success made the most money.  The people of this credibility starved industry, long deserving of such positive recognition, sold out the entire run of that issue.  In fact, Success magazine broke their all time single issue sales record by almost twice the previous record.  The result, obviously, was a lot more positive portrayals of network marketing companies in future issues.  Unfortunately, in spite of this bold demonstration of exactly how profitable it could be for doing nothing more than being fair and balanced and also presenting the positive side of network marketing, few other mainstream publications followed Success’s lead.  So, several network marketing trade publications decided, let’s do it ourselves.  Soon, we had several glossy, full color, network marketing focused magazines hitting the newsstands.  At the moment, none of these publications have taken the country by storm – in fact, most have struggled – but understand, the fact that they even exist is a giant step forward for network marketing, and anyone who truly cares about the well being of this industry should support their efforts in what ever way they can.

But this isn’t where the greatest promise lies as far as positive media exposure.  What about this idea:  Let’s say, instead of paying for an advertement, you worked out an arrangement where you enrolled the media itself, got the exposure for free, but the resulting sales volume and downline that was generated from the campaign went under the company?  They could potentially make far more income from overrides than from ad fees, even after the ads stop running.  It’s a perfect win-win scenario – we get the positive mainstream exposure, the media could get even more money from us that if they charged us for the ads. Would this work?  It already is.  Slowly, quietly, such a movement is taking place.  I know for a fact that there are currently over 100 radio stations in the U.S. attempting this, and some are succeeding, big time.  Yet, virtually the entire network marketing industry is oblivious to the fact this is even happening.  It’s simply a matter of time until the mainstream media’s grapevine picks up on this alternative ad revenue generator.

Finally, let’s not overlook the public image boost we’re getting from the various athletes, celebrities, political figures and medical authorities network marketing is attracting like never before.  And no, not all are just paid endorsers, and many of them have careers that are based on their reputation and positive image, and they’ve openly and willingly attached their good names to network marketing.  We’ve also got well respected mainstream authors and speakers such as Richard Poe, Paul Zane Pilzer, Mark Victor Hansen, Brian Tracy and Robert Kiasaki extolling the virtues of network marketing.  This kind of powerful, third party validation has never happened before, nearly to this extent.  And it’s just starting, and it’s growing.

Reason #7:  Regulation

Earlier we discussed the cyclical nature of network marketing as it related to the economy.  I hope you picked up on the fact that the first half of every decade outperformed the second half – and that’s been the case for the last 40 years.

But there were more than just economic reasons for this cycle.  The regulatory climate often times influenced the mood of distributors and our prospects, and therefore, has effected the condition of the industry to an extent.  The most obvious example being the previously mentioned federal actions back in the 70’s.  Legal attacks by state or federal authorities on high profile network marketing companies do occur from time to time, and curiously seem to peak in pre-election years, but that could just be a coincidence.  Most of those larger companies, by the way, not only survived the attack, but are considered models of legality today who’s policies and enforcement systems are emulated by younger companies.  Yes, there have been many situations where pyramid schemes have been shut down, and typically the action is described as “the network marketing company that was shut down because it was an illegal pyramid scheme.”  It drives me nuts when I hear someone make a statement like that.  It’s kind of like saying “A really honest man was exposed as a lier.”  Well, then he wasn’t an honest man, was he?  Either you’re an illegal pyramid scheme, or you’re a network marketing company.  You can’t be both.  I want to make this very clear before we go any further on this subject:  Illegal pyramid schemes often times try to disguise themselves as network marketing companies because they want to appear legal.  Unfortunately, when the media reports on illegal pyramid schemes, we do suffer a guilt by association, and again, that does have an effect on our ability to retain distributors and acquire new ones, at last temporarily.

The good news is that the last few years we’ve seen really no significant legal attacks on network marketing companies, and several closures of illegal schemes.  Not only does this make the industry stronger due to a smaller pool of opportunities, legal or otherwise, but it also increase our ability to build, because we don’t have the negative stigma of a well publicized regulatory hit creating greater resistance toward the industry.  Not only that, but it also demonstrates a greater ability among regulators to delineate between pyramids and good, legitimate MLM programs.  This should be especially encouraging and comforting to those who’ve built substantial incomes in “high profile” opportunities, or those who intend to be high profile.

And, once again, I’ve saved the best news for last.  There is active lobbying going on right now by the DSA and others, to enact legislation that will create federal regulation of network marketing.  As it is now, and always has been, operating a network marketing company in the United States is kind of like trying to do business in 50 little countries.  Each state has it’s own set of laws pertaining to business opportunities, some specifically to MLM, and all have statutes pertaining to pyramid schemes.  Although, for the most part, each state’s definition of an illegal pyramid is consistent with the other 49, the interpretation and implementation of those laws has been somewhat haphazard and arbitrary over the years.  It’s true that there was a significant legal precedent created by the federal court’s decision in the Amway case in 1979, but even that has been utterly ignored in more recent cases such as the infamous Webster vs. Omnitrition case in 1994 where the 9th circuit court of appeals (the most overturned appeals court in the land) chose to disregard personal consumption by distributors as a legitimate, commissionable sale.  Fortunately, this decision didn’t create law, just a seldom followed guideline.  In fact, several individual states in recent years, such as Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Kentucky have created statutes that specifically recognize personal consumption as a legitimate sale, and there’s legal precedent in California that they’ve also adopted this position.  But still, the enforcement actions over the years have been inconsistent not only between state and federal precedent, but from state to state, and sometimes even from case to case within the same state.

Not only will federal regulation create a clear, consistent path for all network marketing companies, and state regulators, to follow, but, much like the federal regulation of franchising back in the 60’s, may eventually require truer and fuller disclosure.  Now, as I understand it, that’s not what’s in the current draft of legislation being proposed as of this writing.  However, if this ever did come to pass, and many believe it will, it would absolutely be a good thing.  Very good.  Not only will it tremendously strengthen the industry by weeding out the bad apples, it will cause this massive turnover rate among start up companies to drop to a fraction of it’s current level because most won’t even start up in the first place.  Gone will be the days of usually ex-distributors sitting around a table saying, hey, let’s get a few thousand dollars together and start our own MLM company – now, what can we sell?  And the ones that do launch will have to be serious players with solid backing.  So not only will more distributors be packed into fewer companies, but those companies will be only the highest quality opportunities.  Federal regulation will also greatly increase the respect and credibility level of our industry. This will create a tremendous boost to all established U.S. based MLM companies.  Not only do I not fear the concept of federal regulation, I find the vision of this new era of network marketing to be absolutely exhilarating!

Yes, there are some people who are still apprehensive about the prospect of federal regulation.  I’ve heard the argument made, as I’m sure many of you have, that back in 1963, congress came within 11 votes of outlawing franchising.  Well, not only didn’t they but the post regulatory era of franchising has created an industry that now moves over one-third of all the goods and services in this country!  Federal regulation was the catalyst to the biggest boom in franchising history.

In their attempt to tidy up network marketing from a regulatory standpoint, might the feds throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water?  Not a chance.  Not only are there over 1,200 network marketing companies in this country, employing tens of thousands of tax payers, and generating literally billions in sales and corporate tax revenue, there are about 5 million MLMers out there who are also registered voters.  That may not be a huge percentage of the total population, but as our last presidential election clearly demonstrated, it’s enough to make a huge difference in the political landscape of this country.  Not only that, but there are even a few network marketers in congress, and some of our larger MLM companies have been quite generous in their political contributions.

Network marketing isn’t going anywhere – but up.

Reason #8:  Industry Growth Rates

There are a lot of little hints out there that the interest in entrepreneurship is on the rise, such as a recent report by Barns & Noble that the percentage of business related books sold in the U.S. has risen the last five straight years.  Also, not only has the number of small businesses increased annually since 1991, what’s most exciting is that the rate of increase is just beginning to accelerate.

There’s anecdotal evidence when we look at the supply vs. the demand for 800 numbers.  It took 29 years to use up the 7 million 800 numbers available, and 888 numbers were introduced in 1996.  It took two years to exhaust the supply of 888 numbers, and the telecom industry is already planning to roll out not only 866, but 855 numbers.  Not only does this indicate a growing market, due to the increase in small, home based, and internet related businesses, but certainly it’s more due to the dramatically lower cost and corresponding increase in availability.  This could easily be a nice seguey into yet an entirely new reason for believing in an upcoming network marketing boom – the increase in technologies once affordable by only large, million dollar corporation that are now emerging in small and even home based operations.  And this trend towards technological advancement, availability and affordability is still at the very beginning of that curve.

Although this tangent really deserves further discussion, let’s get back to growth trends.

Based on information supplied by the Office of Employment Projections and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total number of self-employed workers in the U.S. changed very little from 1986 to 1996.  However, they project an 11% increase from 1996 to 2006, with sales related occupations being the largest segment.  However, according to the Small Business Administration, the number of self employed people actually dropped slightly from ’96 to 1999, likely due to the robust economy and abundance of good paying jobs.  This means that for these projections to hold true, the entire 11% increase would have to occur from 2000 to 2006.

But let’s get to the bottom line:  What are the growth trends of the network marketing industry itself?

Since the top twelve publicly traded MLM companies provide the most reliable information, and they make up the majority of the largest, most well established companies, I’m again directing my analysis towards them, although an informal survey of unaudited data provided by private MLM companies reinforced these results.

From 1990 to 1995 annual sales growth averaged about 16%, and some years was as high as 30%.  However, if we track the growth of these public companies, based on U.S. revenue only, you’ll find that the average annual sales growth from 1996 to 2000 was 8.7%, reaching a low of just over 6% from 1999 to 2000.  And the entire direct selling industry’s growth rate dropped to a ten year low of 4.5% around this same time.  Based on this information it would seem that industry growth was about to come to a grinding halt.  But instead, the growth rate of these companies from 2000 to 2001 was 14.6 percent, more than double the previous year’s rate!  Without question, the slowing trend has reversed.  This is by far the strongest signal of pending momentum, when there is not only an increase in growth, but the rate of growth is also accelerating.  Now, one year of doubling growth rates certainly does not guarantee a boom, however, one thing is certain – every company momentum phase throughout MLM history began with that first period of doubling growth rates.

There you have it folks.  Not one, not two, but eight solid, powerful, verifiable reasons for finally believing in an upcoming network marketing explosion.  No one knows exactly when it will happen, it could be next month, it could be next year, if could be anytime the first half of this decade.  All we know for sure is, if you get involved now, and stay involved, you will be there when it happens.  So hop on, strap in, and get ready for the ride of your life.  It’s gonna’ be a blast!

The Quintessential Qualifying Question

By Len Clements © 2002

You have a prospect.  Now what?  Should you lead with the opportunity, or the product?  If so, which product?  Do they want to lose weight, look younger, or have more energy?  Or are they looking for more money, and if so, how much?  Great wealth, or maybe it’s time freedom their really after and all they want is to make enough so they can quit their job.  Or, perhaps just enough to make a car payment.  What should you lead with?  What should you focus on?

Why not ask them?

One of the greatest challenges with the proverbial “simple, duplicatable system” is that many are too simplified.  By employing a no-brainer, cookie cutter system of finding, qualifying, and closing prospects we’re essentially shooting at a target with our eyes closed.  Sure, repeating the exact same scripted presentation, sending the exact same info-pack, and providing trite, prefab responses to every objection (or worse, just sending everyone to the exact same web site) is certainly simple, and quite duplicatable – and utterly ineffective.  Yes, opening your eyes and aiming at the target does take a little more work, that’s true.  But it’s not rocket science, and you’ll hit the target ten times more often!

Of course, it is a bit awkward to call a prospect, introduce yourself, then ask, “So, Bob, what would you like me to lead with?”  That probably wouldn’t work very well either.  But there is one, simple, tactful, qualifying question you can kick off any prospecting call with.  A question that will provide you with all the information you’ll ever need in locating the unique bulls eye for each prospect, and they’ll never even know that’s what you’re trying to do.

Just ask them (insert drum roll here…), “Have you ever been involved in network marketing before?”

At this point your prospect must give you one of three possible answers:  No, I’ve never been (or perhaps the equivalent response, “What’s that?”); or, “Yes, I was once, but not anymore;” or, “Yes, I am right now.”  Each has attached to it an obvious follow up question (no script necessary for this system).  If they responded that they have never been involved before, ask what sparked their interest now (we’re assuming for the moment that you’re dealing with folks who have expressed some interest, in some manner, in at least some kind of MLM or home based business).  If they said they were involved in MLM before, but not now, ask them what happened before.  If they claim they are currently involved in an MLM program, you’ll want to know why they are looking for something different (or, are they looking for something in addition to it?).

After your second tier of questioning, just sit back, listen, and take notes.  Your prospect will now reveal exactly what they want you to lead with.

If they said they were involved in the past, but lost their downline when the company went out of business, should you lead with your fantastic new energy drink, or the power of your compensation plan’s matching bonus, or perhaps should you focus on the stability of your company?  What if they said the company they are involved in right now has lousy sales tools and their sponsor is providing no support.  Company stability, great products, lucrative comp plan – or your company’s wonderful sales aids, your upline’s effective training tools, and all the love, encouragement and support you’re going to provide them?  You don’t have to wonder – they just told you.

What if they respond to your first question with “What the heck is network marketing?”  Or with the dreaded “Aren’t those all pyramid schemes?”  You could safely assume here that they’ve probably never been involved in MLM before, and you may want to postpone any discussion pertinent to your specific opportunity, take a giant step backwards, and begin by defining or defending the general concept of multilevel marketing.  By the way, in the vast majority of cases you’ll be defining, not defending.  This is a vital and often skipped step in the process of recruiting MLM-ignorant prospects (less I offend anyone, ignorant means a lack of knowledge, not intelligence).  There’s more detail on exactly how to handle this scenario in the article titled “The ABC Technique” on my web site.

What you’re ultimately going for here is to determine what the prospect is looking for.  Of course, you could just ask “What are you looking for?”  But with this “Have you ever been involved…” approach you’ll not only eventually derive the same information, you’ll also get valuable insights as to what their concerns are.  So not only are you defining specific targets to aim for, you’re mapping out land mines to avoid.

Again, take copious notes of the conversation.  Capture the key sound bites and record them on index cards (literally or virtually).  Not only will it reveal what to lead with during this initial call, but also how you may want to customize the information package you send them, handle their future objections, and focus on in follow up calls.  If you eventually do a 3-way call with your sponsor, he or she should be provided with your intel as well.

This even works well with prospective prospects who have not yet expressed any interest.  If you’re having lunch with a friend, just ask the unassuming question, “Bob, have you ever heard of network marketing?”  In the event Bob responds with only a “Yes” answer, dig an inch deeper with the more specific “Have you every tried it?”

This approach also works well when leaving messages on your prospect’s answering machine, which they always quickly return, right?  Yeah, right.  This is one of the most common lamentations among MLM distributors throughout the history of, well, answering machines.  Prospects rarely return calls.  That’s because, most likely, they are expecting a long, heavy handled sales pitch.  So what if, on your message, you said you wanted to give them some “free information so I don’t have to explain everything over the phone” but before doing so you wanted to “take only about five minutes to ask you a couple quick questions about yourself.”  Not only have you established the fact that you are not going to pitch them on this first, prequalifying call, but you’ve established a precedent as to how the business is done.  You’ve created the impression with your prospect that, should they get involved, they too won’t have to give prospects the hard sell.  What’s more, rather than ask them to call you back to listen to a sales pitch (akin to asking them to volunteer for an unnecessary root canal), you’re instead requesting that they do something us humans inherently love to do – talk about themselves!  Try this approach. You’re call back rate will skyrocket.

Imagine you’re standing in a shooting gallery.  One target is labeled “Time freedom.”  Another says “Lose Weight” while another reads “More Energy.”  The target right in the middle has “Get Rich” painted on it, while yet another says only “Comfortable Living.”  There’s even one that says “Personal Growth.”  And surrounding these targets are dozens and dozens of others.  Hit the right one and your prospect signs up – but which one?  Don’t just assume it’s the easy center shot (in deed, for the vast majority of your prospects, “Get Rich” isn’t it, and if hit too often or too hard may even cause you to lose points).  Don’t guess, or shoot randomly hoping if you take enough shots you’re get lucky.

Just ask.  They’ll love to tell you.

Begging To Be Mislead

By Len Clements © 2002

If you ever want to determine the level of honesty and/or MLM savvy of the person trying to sponsor you, the best question you can ask is the worst question you can ask…

How much money will I make?

If your prospective sponsor even begins to try to give you a definitive answer to this question, or worse, further defines the amount of time it will take to get you there, they either A); are a naive rookie that honestly doesn’t know any better and is likely just repeating the same garbage they were recently fed by their sponsor, or B) they’re making up garbage on their own and feeding it to you in an effort to tell you what they think you want to hear.

I can’t count the number of times a prospect has asked me for a specific income expectation.  Or, as just occurred recently, a prospect will state their income goal then ask how long they’d have to work to achieve it.  In this most recent case, my prospect wanted to make “$5,000 per month” and asked if that was “possible” within six months.  I then inform him that his question is impossible to answer, knowing full well they my competition is likely responding with an enthusiastic “Absolutely!”  Why is it impossible to answer?  Let us count the ways.

Such a question is kind of like stating the algebraic equation Y+T+L=5,000, then asking what Y, T and L equal.  Mathematically, this would be impossible to answer.  Nor is it possible in MLM.

Y=You.  Your ability, your efforts, your personality, your contact base (or “center of influence”).

T=Them.  Those you enroll, and those they enroll – and their abilities, effort, attitudes, and contacts.

L=Luck.  Call it serendipity, call it fate, call it divine intervention.  Call it what you will, but call it something, because it counts.

If you were a talented high school basketball player looking for a college to sign with, would you ask each recruiter how many NCAA championships you’ll win?  Of course not, because he’d have to predict the Y, the T (in this case it stands for Team), and the L factors.

Even you can’t accurately predict what you will do, how well you’ll do it, how fast you’ll get better at it, how you’ll react to failure (or success), and how long you’ll wish to do it.  So how can you’re sponsor possibly judge this?

An even greater wild card is what others will do.  You can control what you do, but you can’t control what others do.  Nor can you even begin to predict how well they will do and how soon.  I know someone who’s been working the same MLM program for over three years, has personally sponsored 55 people, and not one has done a thing.  I know another person who, just two months after joining my downline, enrolled a couple who built a leg over over 900 people in just three months.  These are good examples, albeit extreme, of how unpredictable the success of others in your downline can be.

The Luck factor accounts for everything else.  The more regulatory conscience reader my wince a bit on this point, so let’s be clear.  I’m not talking about luck in the sense of a lottery or gambling, per se.  I’m talking about that intangible factor that helps us succeed in any type of business, or in life for that matter.  Was it skill or effort that put John Lennon and Paul McCartney in the same neighborhood as children?  Or  that caused a stage hand named Clint Eastwood to catch the eye of a famous director?  Obviously, talent was eventually a factor.  But how many very talented people never succeed because they just couldn’t get a break?  There’s quite a few in MLM as well?

There’s also just the opposite situation.  I know someone who was the number three earner in a very large MLM company, yet openly admitted to having little knowledge of MLM, and only a handful of personally sponsored people.  Fortunately for him, one of them was the number one earner in the company.  You might enroll 100 people in your MLM career, and three will develop into superstars and make you wealthy.  And they might be the second, third, and fifth person you enroll – or the 94th, 97th, and 99th person you enroll.

There are external factors to consider.  You could have done the exact same things, in the exact same company, using the exact same tools, in 1998 (the midst of our most recent MLM slump) and had twice the success had you done them in 1991 (our last MLM boom).  As I attest to in my audio presentation “The Coming Network Marketing Boom” we are coming out of that most recent slump and on the verge of our next boom, so this factor looks positive for everyone right now.

I’ve heard more than one wealthy MLMer claim “The harder I work the luckier I get” in an effort to sarcastically discredit the luck factor.  No, the harder they work, the more effectively they enhance the influence of Y and T in the equation.  There’s still something to be said for just happening to know the right people, being in the right place, and at the right time.  

And when predicting income, all of this isn’t even considering the more tangible factors such as the products, company, support system and compensation plan of the specific opportunity you’re considering.  All of these factors, and especially comp plans, tend to perform far differently in actual practice than they do on paper.  How closely each of these factors are represented in relation to reality varies significantly from company to company and from sponsor to sponsor.

This is also not even factoring in the issue of net income vs. gross income.  Who cares if you succeed in earning five grand in six months if it costs you six grand a month to do it?  Okay, so $5,000 in profit then.  Well, is that $15,000 gross income and $10,000 in expenses, or $5,500 gross and $500 in expenses?  The less you put into building the business the less you can expect out of it.  It’s reasonable to assume, as in any business, the greater your budget, the faster you’re reach your profit goal.  I’m often asked, “So how much should I budget each month for my MLM business?”  My answer is always, “The most you can comfortably afford, but not a penny more.”  I have no idea what that number is for each prospect,  and more times that not, neither do they!

I’m certainly not suggesting you can’t make $5,000 in six months in MLM.  All I’m saying is, don’t ask if you can.  You’re just begging to be mislead.

Don’t Diligence

Due Diligence of a Network Marketing Opportunity
is Only as Good as the Questions You Ask – or Don’t Ask.

By Leonard W. Clements © 2000

It is an unfortunate fact that conducting a proper due diligence of an MLM program, before joining it, is a rarely performed process.  Even those few who attempt it do so in such a way that they are begging to be mislead.  Due diligence is one thing – a proper due diligence is quite another.

There are four ingredients to a profitable, enduring network marketing opportunity:  A good compensation plan, a good product line, a good company, and a good support system.  Alas, many decisions as to which MLM program to join involve little more than adding up the percentages in the compensation plan brochure.  The bigger number wins.  Any other contrasting, comparing or appraising of MLM opportunities mainly involves prospective sponsors playing “dueling hype.”  The prospect asks each potential success-suiter to basically tell them everything they want to hear – and they all eagerly oblige.  The one who spins the best tail of multilevel utopia is the victor.

“We have the highest quality products that sell themselves, the most lucrative, revolutionary compensation plan, the easiest most duplicatable system, and the company is debt free and about to go into momentum.”  There is it.  Every MLM prospecting pitch ever given.  I’m sure you’ve heard it too.  But, when your sponsor said this, did you ever ask “How do you know?”  Or better yet, “How can I know that all this is true?”  Without asking this question, without digging deeper to discover the truth, you can only accept it all on blind faith.  So, the first step is to challenge your prospective sponsor to sponsor your due diligence process.  Enlist them.  By all means, give them the chance to back up their superlative claims with tangible, verifiable, historical, mathematical, or whatever type of proof is necessary.

This is the point where many soon-to-be network marketers who think they’re conducting due diligence fall back on what are utterly useless questions.  For example, “Can I really make money at this?”  – an actual question I’ve been asked so many times.  Or, this more sophisticated sounding but just as useless of a question: “Is the company positioned for long term growth?” Or, “Do the products work?”  Or, “Is your system duplicatable?” My first grade teacher once told me There are no dumb questions.  I now wholeheartedly disagree.  Why ask a question when you already absolutely know the answer is going to be an enthusiastic “Yes!”  Wouldn’t a better question be, “How can I make money at this?”  Or, “What is your duplicatable system?”  Or, “Is the company growing?” and if so, “How do you know it is?”

Of course, this is only the first step to a proper due diligence.  Asking your prospective sponsor to validate their positive statements is important, but you still have to validate their validations.

There have been many articles written about how to evaluate an MLM program.  Most list basic, seemingly common sense actions such as; call the Better Business Bureau, call the Attorney General’s office, get a D&B credit report on the company, study their financial statements, find out what the top earners are making, are their testimonials or scientific studies to support the product claims, and so on.  In a perfect word, where all this information is available and accurate, a proper due diligence would swift, easy and simple.

This isn’t a perfect world.

Let’s take these one at a time.  First, a BBB report is essential.  However, don’t put so much weight on the number of complaints as you do to the number that have are unresolved.  It’s better to have 20 amicably resolved complaints than to have ten unresolved.  Of course, it’s even better to have none.

Yes, you should call your state’s AG’s office, but more importantly you should call the AG’s office of the state the company’s corporate office is located.  Usually, if any other state were to close them down, they just don’t do business in that state.  If their home state closes them down, their probably done.  Also, keep in mind that most AG’s offices will only tell you if a formal action has been taken (but not about open investigations).  Most will also tell you the number of complaints, if any, that have been filed.  But beware. Some states, such as California, lump complaints and inquiries (such as yours) into the same total.  And, again, place the emphasis on how the company has handled the complaints, not just the raw total.

Personally, I’ve found Dun & Bradstreet reports to be generally unreliable (and not cheap) and would not recommend this step.  D&B typically reports information supplied by the company.  The type of MLM company that you would most want to avoid is the one that would lie to Dun & Bradstreet.  Right?

Studying a company’s financial statements would be an obvious step – if it wasn’t for the fact that less than 2% of all MLM companies are public companies.  And you can bet the private one’s are not going to show you their books.  What’s more, you have to know how to read a financial statement.  Once obtained (go to www.sec.gov, do an “EDGAR” search for the company and pull up their most recent 10k), don’t just jump to the bottom line (net profit).  Read all those pages of text.  There’s usually very interesting, and very revealing information in there (both positive and negative).  Also, don’t just look at last year.  Go back at least five and look for trends.  

The financial or sales data you get from the company or it’s reps (outside of SEC filings) are usually ripe with hype (which the dictionary defines as “to increase artificially”).  One company recently claimed to have “record revenues” for the previous quarter.  Although the statement was technically true, their SEC filings revealed that almost half of that revenue was assets the company was selling off.  Remember, revenue is not the same as product sales.  Yet another company recently claimed to have “record sales” for the quarter.  Again, the claim was technically true, although the company also reported it’s first “net loss” in it’s history.  Clearly, net profit is more important than sales.

Probably the most common, and most abused financial claim is to be “debt free.”  Understand, NO network marketing company is truly debt free, nor would they want to be.  First of all, accrued commissions and bonuses is a “payable.”  It’s debt.  Does the company really have none of this?  I hope not.  Furthermore, debt can be good and very useful.  Without it you may not be able to establish credit terms, which the company may desperately need in the future.  Or perhaps the company is “debt free” because they have a poor payment history and can’t establish credit.  How do you know?  What if the company experiences strong growth?  To have the inventory, staff and infrastructure to handle 50,000 distributors when you only have 10,000 usually requires taking on some debt.  Debt also frees up liquid capital to grow and expand the business, or to weather down turns.  How much debt a company carries is a better question, not whether they have it or not.

Earnings related questions can be the most misleading of all.  First, to provide earnings data without numerous other disclosures can be deemed a “deceptive trade practice” by regulators.  To use your or another’s earnings as an inducement to join an MLM program is considered taboo.  Those who practice it are putting their opportunity at risk.  Also, this is basically useless information as far as your ability to earn an income.  Comparing the incomes of individuals from different MLM companies to determine which one you want to make your living from is like comparing the sugar content of a single grape from two different orchards to decide which one you want to make your wine from.  Besides, most prospects want to get involved with an opportunity before it gets really huge, yet many are seduced by huge incomes – which can’t be developed until huge growth occurs!  This creates a paradoxical search criteria.

Due diligence of product claims is tricky.  First of all, as far as disease treatment claims, make sure there aren’t any!  Even personal testimonials are not safe haven.  The company is still liable and may be required by the FTC to provide scientific substantiation of the claim.  Even if they could, the FDA could then step in and declare the product an “unapproved new drug.”  So, certainly test the products and see if they work on your ailments, then make sure no one is saying it will.  Like I said, this one’s tricky.

Unfortunately, space limits me to only a brief survey of some of the “don’ts” of doing a proper due diligence.  To really do this subject justice would require about a 50 page analysis (and does, in my book Inside Network Marketing).  I hope you’ve at least gleaned from this article the idea that doing a proper due diligence first requires that you do some digging, and that there are rigth and wrong places to dig.

The Diamond of Needs

By Len Clements © 1992

After two years of intense study of the network marketing phenomenon, and after observing numerous successes and failures, one thing has become clear.   The primary reason why 90% of MLM distributors fail is simply because they don’t do what is absolutely necessary to achieve that success.  It’s called NETWORKING.

Ask yourself these questions:  Is it reasonable that 1 out of 100 people I present my opportunity to will sign up?  Can I contact 20 people a day, even if it was to only hand them an audio tape or brochure?  Could I close just one a week (out of 140 contacts)?  Could I close just 3 a month (out of over 600 contacts)?  What amount of success will I have achieved after five years, having personally recruited 180 people?

Obviously, anyone could contact 20 people a day.  Less than 10 minutes at the local shopping mall just handing out free audio tapes and brochures would do it (or better yet, twice a week for an hour).  And three recruits out of 600 contacts could be achieved almost by accident.  At such a pace, even if only a fourth of your recruits worked the business to only the extent of signing up one other person per month, your downline after five years would number into the tens of thousands.

So… if it’s all so easy, why isn’t everyone in MLM rich?

First of all, for most people, handing out tapes to total strangers is scary.  It’s not fun.  Secondly, at such a pace just described, you would only have about 30-40 people in your organization after the first year.  Not exactly a great motivator to continue this drudgery — even if you knew that five years of this pain would result in a lifetime of joy and luxury.

The point is this:  If you did have the motivation to go out and take massive action, on a consistent, daily basis, for a period of five years, it appears obvious that anyone could achieve great financial success in network marketing.

Motivational theory is certainly a broad and diversified subject.  It is rooted in the basic theories of the American psychologist Abraham Maslow, who devised a 6-level hierarchy (pyramid) of motives that determine human behavior.  The base of the pyramid is physiological needs, such as food, water, and the desire to procreate.  The second level was security and safety.  Third, love and feelings of belonging.  Fourth, competence, prestige, and esteem.  The top of the hierarchy included self-fulfillment, and culminated at the apex with the desire for total knowledge.  Each level of needs must be fully met before the next level could be fulfilled.  The fulfillment of all needs in the hierarchy is known as “self actualization”.

I am certainly in no position to question the theories of Mr. Maslow — and I don’t.  I think they are, for the most part, right on target.  The only challenges I find with this “hierarchy of needs” are these: a)  How can I apply this to my daily life, and derive the necessary motivation from it?; and b) How can I present it to others in a simple, duplicatable manner?

These two questions were the genesis of my newest entry into the motivational theory arena, the Diamond of Needs.

Let us say for the moment that there are only four basic needs one needs to fulfill to achieve ultimate happiness, or self-actualization.  They are:  Who you’re with, where you’re at, what you do, and how you feel.

Who you’re with includes not only your spouse and family, but friends, colleagues, co-workers, admires, and so on.  Where you’re at includes not only the geographical location, but your home and general environment.  What you do, not only includes your occupation, but your pastimes, hobbies, learning experiences, and other activities.  How you feel is specifically your physical condition, or health.

Aside from “ultimate knowledge”, which can only be achieved by God (and which I am not convinced is absolutely necessary to achieve ultimate happiness, at least in human form), the above statements, I believe, have summarized the five primary needs in Maslow’s hierarchy into four simple, understandable, and measurable needs, which anyone can relate to.
Diamond Needs Diagram
By measurable, I’m saying that if you were to draw a Diamond of Needs (imagine a baseball diamond with each base representing each of the four needs described above), and rate from 1 to 100 how fulfilled you think that particular need in at this point in your life, you would be able to better determine which area of your life needs attention.  But don’t assume that only that need must be addressed for it to rise to total fulfillment (100).

For example, do you think that What you do, and How you feel might effect Who you’re with, and Where you’re at?  Think about that.  Do you think Who you’re with might in some ways effect how well you do What you do, thus possibly effect Where you’re at, or even How you feel?  Play around with any combination.  Think about it long enough and you’ll find that, although certain needs take priority over others, every need is effected and dependent on the other.

The center of the diamond holds the most important need of all.  The need to be happy.  This primary need is directly tied to all other needs, and can never be rated higher than the highest rating you give any other need.  You will find that this “center” need will constantly be in a state of flux, depending on the fulfillment level of the other four needs.  The next time you are really sad or depressed, you will inevitably find that one or more of your secondary needs is mostly, or even totally, void of fulfillments.  For example, if the Who you’re with need drops to under 10, your center, primary need for happiness will plummet as well.

Even if you are a hermit, and your desire is to be completely alone, your Who your with rating will probably drop to zero if a ski resort is built around your mountain cave, regardless of how much the tourists like you.

So what about the first challenge I mentioned?  How can one utilize this concept to build greater motivation to actively pursue their MLM business?

One way many motivational book and tapes have suggested is to put up on the wall a picture of something you greatly desire.  Usually this is a large, beautiful home, a fancy sports car, a gorgeous man or woman, or perhaps a picture of a far away paradise where you want to visit or live someday.  These all act as good motivators to take action, but each only address a fourth of your total needs and desires.  To dream of the red Porche 911, or ogle over the beautiful model, is like flying a 747 on one of the four engines.  Sure, it can still move you ahead, but think how much more of a boost you could get if all four engines were driving you forward.

How about this?  Get a bulletin board (the cork kind works best, about 2′ x 3′, found at any office supply store) and paste to it a photo or description of what would ultimately satisfy each of the four corner needs.  Put that big house you saw, or that post card of Maui, over Where you’re at.  Put a picture of a mountain climber, hang glider, deep sea diver, or what ever you want to do, over that corner.  How about a blurred picture of a sprinter, just bolting out of the starting blocks, in the How you feel corner.  Or someone jumping for joy, or a body builder, or a lion, whatever you perceive to be something that expresses health, power and vitality.  If you’re married, the Who you’re with corner should be covered by a photo of your spouse, less your How you feel, and Where you’re at ratings may drop dramatically.  Otherwise, you might want to put a picture of a celebrity you admire, a classmate or co-worker you would like to meet, or maybe a photo of a person speaking to a large room full of smiling admirers (or perhaps that is best suited for the What you do corner?).

Now you have a powerful collage of driving, motivational stimuli that can really kick you into gear.  You’ve got all four needs firing, not just one or two.

Of course, many people read books and listen to tapes about motivational techniques and goal setting procedures.  The real trick is getting the motivation to carry them out.  Take the time to build your Diamond of Needs, and don’t just hang it up somewhere and forget it.  Take five minutes each morning, and whenever you feel the need for a boost throughout the day, and study your collage.  Really feel it.  Think about how a successful MLM career will effect, and fulfill, each need.

One final thought.  Network marketing is a training and support business.  It’s people helping people to succeed and meet their goals.  How do you think it might effect What you do and Who you’re with, and ultimately your overall happiness, if you were responsible for many others reaching and fulfilling their goals and dreams?  It’s may be the closest you will ever come to self-actualization.