Comment Number: 522418-10709
Received: 7/16/2006 9:13:20 PM
Organization: Independent Consultant/Arbonne International
Commenter: Doreen Crow
State: TX
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

Mrs. Doreen T. Crow National Vice President, Independent Consultant Arbonne International   July 15, 2006 Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex W) Re: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 RE: Business Opportunity Rule, R511993 Dear Professional Associate: This correspondence is precipitated due to my concern(s) proposed within the Business Opportunity Rule R511993. As constructed for review, it would unnecessarily encumber, if not negate, the continuation of my participation as an Arbonne Independent Consultant. I appreciate that it is the FTC’s responsibility/mission is to protect the public. However, the scope of the protection should be from “unfair and deceptive acts or practices”. The proposed rule is regressive on the small private business person for an honorable business venture such as Arbonne as an Independent Consultant. If passed, it would render the small business person operating within the scope of the “Arbonne Home Based Business Concept” (Network Marketing) virtually impossible to function or sell Arbonne products while sponsoring new consultants into the business. The 7-day waiting period to sign up new Consultants is far too restrictive on operational efficiency. The investment I would be forced to make associated with purchase, distribution and tracking of products and/or each of the Arbonne Starter Kits provided to customers and prospective new consultants would be a significant expenditure/negative impact on my business overhead. The monitoring required after delivery of the products and/or kit would be time intensive and systems costs/ upgrades to meet the requirements of the proposed waiting period would be a significant overhead cost to meet the restrictive 7-day waiting period. The proposal also taints the perception of the product and the business model with the 7-day waiting period with a strong subliminal message that there must be something unscrupulous within the Arbonne product line and/or business model. Key to success in this business is capturing the excitement for potential personal growth the perspective new consultants can and do experience with Arbonne products and business model. Delay as a result of the waiting period restriction would limit the ability to grow the business and virtually require that I present the opportunity twice with each proposed new Consultant. Furthermore, the proposed rule implements the release of any information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices. This is also an unnecessary and unfair encumbrance on a business model such as the Arbonne model (especially as it would relate to the responsibility of the independent consultant). Requirements of tracking legal proceedings and integrating the “findings of the court” is absurd. Tracking the culpability issue of warrant-less claims and harassment/frivolous lawsuits is a restriction beyond belief. The invasion of privacy and the potential for identity theft as proposed in the disclosure of at least ten prior prospective Consultants is considerable. References are frequently already provided in the existing model. However, this data and information pertaining to other individuals is only provided with their respective permission and is limited in scope as pertinent to the need. Such knowledge given out to the wrong person has great potential for identity theft under the new proposal while also damaging the business relationship of references with those involved in other companies or businesses, and/or provide an unfair advantage to competitors. To access the list of 10 prior Independent Consultants as proposed is further restrictive. The corporate office of Arbonne in California would need to be access and then wait for the processing of the proposed list. Automation development for this unnecessary restriction would be financially restrictive and time intense. Contract information can be disclosed in the future to other buyers of the current buyer/prospect and must be so informed under the proposal. If I were the prospect and were to be so informed of the potential exposure, I would be understandably concerned about privacy. I would find it an invasion of same! I have been an Arbonne Independent Consultant for more than seven years. I became an Independent Consultant after working with teenagers for twenty-five years in the talent and modeling business around the world. I utilized the Arbonne products to improve not only the appearance of their complexion but also found the supplements aided in their general health. I always found the Arbonne products to be far above the standard. As I already enjoyed the benefits of the Arbonne products in the modeling business and our family was in need of a second source of income, I investigated the Arbonne business model and began to also enjoy the benefits of the income from the Arbonne Network Marketing model. Since starting my Arbonne business, I have developed a team of hundreds of Independent Consultants across the country. I am proud of my relationship with the company and the benefits it has provided both my family and the consultants that are now within the Arbonne model as a result of my activities and the integrity of Arbonne. Together, we are helping our families enjoy better health, financial freedom and lives. I appreciate the mission and performance of the FTC in protecting consumers. However, I believe this proposed new rule would too restrictive on compliant small businesses such as found in the existing Arbonne profile/business model. Network marketing sustains the livelihood of millions of self employed and small business Americans and their families. The consequences of too restrictive and cumbersome rules and regulations as found in the new proposal are considerable. A substitute proposal or significant restructuring of the existing proposal is necessary. Thank you in advance for your diligent attention to this matter. Sincerely, Doreen T. Crow