Comment Number: 522418-10216
Received: 7/15/2006 11:06:59 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Salli Carey
State: TN
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

I would like to oppose this ruling as I believe it would negatively impact my business. I am involved in 2 networking companies that offer some of the best products I have ever used in my industry. I am a Licensed Massage Therapist and an independent affiliate for It Works Marketing! and Gano Excel. The products from both companies are a tremendous asset and compliment my business well. The greatest appeal to me has been the ability to manage those accounts at a level that allows for expansion as my business grows. If I were to go with other non-networking companies, I could not have afforded to do so without taking out a business loan and going into debt immediately. I also would have been restricted to only earning retail markups instead of being able to earn commissions as well. One of the biggest appeals to me is to be able to tell people about great products and how they can receive them at a great price. I would not be able to keep up with the paperwork from a 7 day waiting period, I am self employed and have 4 children with another on the way. I think it would be very unappealing to potential clients who wished to purchase products at wholesale to have to wait 7 - 10 days before they could process an order, and then another 3-10 days for shipping. It would really require me to carry more product up front then I have the ability to. I enjoy working from home, and really do not want to have to go back to work to contribute to our households income outside of the home. It would cost me more in daycare and travel expenses than I could earn per week and negate the whole point. Working from home eliminates all those problems. With a new baby on the way our goal is to transition over to sales only. I also am concerned about the reference list and identity theft, and the fact that other businesses are not required to do the same. I appreciate the efforts to protect consumers, but feel that this is to broad of a ruling that only puts a bandaid on the problem. It still requires you to have to weed out those who are truly abusing the situation, and inconveniences those who are not. Please reconsider. Respectfully, Salli A. Carey