Comment Number: 522418-10304
Received: 7/16/2006 3:15:25 AM
Organization: Andersen International
Commenter: Marie Andersen
State: SD
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

This business opportunity powered by Quixtar is more than a business. It has made me a better wife, mother, daughter, and even employee. How this happened, is by the mentorship the business provides and the program that is set up for teaching - as in books that are recommended, cd's, and conferences. In fact, there has been such a positive influence, I will be as bold to say it has saved our marriage. Changes to systems are good sometimes, of course, if they benefit all parties involved in some way. As I see it, these proposals that are being given do not follow this logic. For example, prospects get excited about this opportunity & see hope for a new & bright future & want to share their newfound joy with others close to them. Results could really show in a matter of hours let alone days! This new 7-day restriction could affect this dramatically on seeing results right away on new prospects wondering if there is something they are supposed to be researching in depth because of this waiting period and wondering if people will lose their momentum and excitement! Quixtar currently allows for a 6-month money back guarantee if the new IBO wishes. I feel very comfortable with that & strongly feel my prospects/new IBOs feel good about it, too. This is much longer than seven days to "research" and get a good feel on the business. Disclosures for litigations against the company could be considered infringing privacy from the company's perspective and even going as far as falsifying truths. Infringing privacy because there are many company's, big and small, that sell to customers, have investors, and accrue partners. My question would be how to draw that line to who should know what and what for. For example, when a company sells a product to a customer, would they tell them that they have x amount of lawsuits on that product and x amount of success stories? Then you try to tell that prospect that many other companies, reputable or not, also may have lawsuits out there, too. Trust is what all companies strive for with customers and partners and I feel that this will not be a positive experience with any parties involved. I say falsifying truths, because who knows if these lawsuits are legitimate or not? You could read things on it online or in newspapers, but is it really the truth? Perhaps it is legit, or maybe someone got mad and wanted to create havoc for the company so it can be on record. Even if a lawsuit is a win for the company, it still may be seen as bad by the prospect in general because there was a lawsuit that took place. As far as disclosing income and showing proper verification goes, it really needs to be a choice for the IBO. The simple reason why is because it is personal information that some willingly tell prospects and some don't. Even at a job, many companies forbid their employees to mention anything to anybody about their pay due to possible jealosy, uprisings, demands on higher raises, etc. As far as quoted bonuses go, perhaps there could be some verification that could be set up, but not personal income in general. In summary, these proposals are not fair in general for all parties involved. These proposals could cause various problems with growth, which is vital with franchising. Viewing this for our business & other companies, these could even cause unnecessary embarrassment. Please reevaluate for positive changes for all parties involved, keeping in mind win-win situations. Sincerely, Marie Andersen