| Comment Number: | 522418-08539 |
| Received: | 7/12/2006 11:28:16 PM |
| Organization: | Quixtar |
| Commenter: | Kelly Haun |
| State: | MI |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I have been an IBO with Quixtar for approx. 7 months. I have seen fellow IBOs make both more and less money than me over this time period, directly related to the level of effort they've put into the business, and am more convinced than ever that the OPPORTUNITY works, though some fail because they fail to work the opportunity. After I was contacted regarding the opportunity, minimal financial claims were made, and there was a TON of negative press available to any reasonable person performing due diligence on the internet. I sat down with my upline and addressed the concerns raised from the negative press, and decided to proceed. Much of the proposed regulation seems to penalize established, viable businesses rather than the fly-by-night companies, because only the established companies will have the track record, history of potential litigation (regardless of its merit), etc., while newer companies may legitimately not need to provide a listing of other members, litigation, etc. because they're still "new." The requirement to provide references is an insult. Though I may ask any business for references, those references have the ability to "opt out" for privacy, while in a networking business based on personal relationships, being forced to provide this information might influence someone to register with another local participant rather than the person who has done the effort to present them with the opportunity based on the participants' past success to date (or outside of the opportunity) - which may be meaningless based on how committed they are to the business opportunity in question FOR THE FUTURE. Finally, though as an IBO I am affiliated with Quixtar, they provide only contracted services for my business, PEOPLE who are IBOs actually create problems and litigation, and because I may have no affiliation with another IBO whom is responsible for bringing litigation against Quixtar, why should my credibility be punished for this? If several window washers utilize a common public relations and billing service, but are individually responsible for their efforts and quality, and one of those should have a disgruntled customer, should the rest of the cooperative be penalized by litigation that doesn't involve those shared services? If Quixtar makes available public information (such as average IBO earnings) and a single IBO makes an earnings claim different from this, why should I be held responsible? As a sales rep for a pharmaceuticals company, individual reps may make huge bonuses, yet I don't feel misled if I don't make them, as they're described as PERFORMANCE bonuses - as long as the same level of information is provided, why should the direct sales industry be held to a different standard than any other type of sales-related industry in terms of remuneration substantiation? In closing, as an ex-commercial banker I applaud the concern with due diligence, however I'm concerned about the potential of scalding the baby to death through our desire to bathe it by using water that's too hot for the job. A resonable cancellation or recission period is laudable, no different from any other type of sale occurring in the home, but a requirement for 7 days unduly retards growth. Requiring local participant listings for contact unduly infringe upon privacy rights as well as, conversely, penalize "distance" areas where a new organization may just be getting started and thus have few or no other participants. Specific earnings disclosures and substantiation rules place unduly burdensome requirements on independent contractors. Most business projections don't bear out (believe me, as a banker, most projections I've seen tend to trend up), due diligence for direct sales opportunites shouldn't be more cumbersome than any other small business faces. When a stockbroker makes a recommendation, they may give analysis, but if they were held to the same standards of disclosure as requested by this proposal, would any stocks be traded?