Comment Number: 522418-10756
Received: 7/16/2006 10:10:23 PM
Organization:
Commenter: Thomas Anderson
State: NC
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

I will begin by saying that I am in full agreement with your goal of ensuring that every prospect considering a business opportunity have all of the information they need to make an educated decision. I have been an Independent Business Owner (IBO) working with Quixtar, Inc. for six (6) years. My goal with my business is to not be dependent on a job working for someone else and having the freedom to do with my time what I feel is important. Although I have not yet achieved that goal I am confident that it is only a matter of time. When I became an IBO I was given information about income potential as well as actual average incomes of active IBOs. It was also emphasized to me that this was not a “get rich quick” type of business and would require work to make it succeed. I was not pressured into making a quick decision and no incentives or promises were made to induce me to do that. What happened to me is how we still handle all of our prospects for our business and how we teach new IBOs to do it also. The cost to get involved is about $200-400, which includes registration fees (depending on options) and introductory product packs (depending on options). I would like to address some specific issues. First is the seven day waiting period. Although we do not pressure prospects to register the day we show them the business there are situations where the prospect understands the opportunity and their needs right away and wishes to become involved quickly in order to hasten their success. Having to wait seven days would slow down and could greatly diminish the appeal of this business to someone who wants to achieve fast growth (which is a strong feature of this business). A seven day waiting period would also be unnecessary for opportunities, such as Quixtar, where a prospect can get his money back if he is not satisfied. The second issue is the required list of 10 other IBOs in the area as a list of “references”. There two aspects of this that are disturbing. First it would infringe on the privacy of every IBO whose personal contact information was given out to prospects. Secondly it would penalize the original sponsor who has worked to bring the opportunity to the prospect by giving the prospect contact information for 10 other IBOs in the area, any of whom might be happy to register the prospect themselves. Prospects have the opportunity to meet other IBOs in our organization at business meetings that we have periodically. The third issue is the requirement to give the prospect a “litigation list”. Although this could give some insight into the integrity of a company or individual it is obvious that in our litigious society being sued is a common occurrence whether the allegations are founded or not. It is also true that it is not only companies that do illegal practices that get sued but also those companies doing their business successfully and legally. Since this requirement is not limited to cases found against the company but even filed cases with no merit it would open up legitimate companies to false accusations and an unfair, and false, appearance of guilt in the minds of most people. The last issue is the requirement for financial substantiation for my personal income from this business. Although the financial success of the sponsor can be an encouragement to the prospect it is not, and should not, be the primary indication of the potential for success for the prospect. The disclosure of how much I am making at my business is a reflection of the effort I have put into my business and is not a direct indicator or dictator of what the prospect could make. The prospects potential income would be based on their involvement in the business support system and their own effort in building their business with the support of the sponsor and the rest of the business support team. Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Anderson