MonaVie sues XOWii in yet another MLM lawsuit

by louabbott on December 25, 2009

Does this lawsuit raise legal and moral issues in MLM that we all need to think about?

I guess any industry that has big business is going to have to endure it’s share of lawsuits. “Why can’t they just all get along?” seems to be a Utopian dream.

Here’s the latest news from the capital of network marketing, Salt Lake City, UT…

MonaVie LLC is suing former distributors and an fledgling California competitor alleging they are trying to steal its independent sales force by spreading lies about the Utah company’s financial prospects.

The South Jordan-based MonaVie is suing the startup XOWii LLC of Newport, Calif., in 3rd District Court in Salt Lake City.

The two companies are among a legion of multilevel marketers among whom competition can be fierce to attract and hold networks of independent distributors of their nutritional and personal-care products.

Interestingly, MonaVie has been extraordinarily successful over their first few years attracting strong leaders from other companies including (but surely not limited to) Xango, Amway, Agel, and Lightyear Alliance.  They even proposed what they called their “Global ‘Free Agent’ Initiative” in order to make it easier for some reps to leave their former companies without the constraints of the typical “unfair and abusive” 6 month to 1 year non-compete covenants.

Of course, depending on their perspective, some people will say MonaVie’s early success was because MonaVie was such a superior company; others will say they aggressively used the same techniques that they are alleging about XOWii.  See “Realted Posts” below.

This lawsuit alleges more than “healthy competition” is going on.  It includes distributors Rodney Robards of OK and Shaylon Hart and Chris Byram of TX ,along with some officers of XOWii, and alleges some of the following:

The three obtained lists and contact information of MonaVie’s distributors, potential distributors and customers and used them to spread false information about it in order to lure them to XOWii, the lawsuit alleges.

They and possibly others “have contacted existing and prospective distributors and customers of MonaVie, both personally and through the utilization of an automated messaging system, and made disparaging statements that reflected poorly upon MonaVie,” according to the complaint.

XOWii’s offices were closed Thursday, and officials at the company could not be reached for comment. An e-mail and voice mail to MonaVie seeking comment were not returned.

MonaVie said the falsehoods being spread about it included that many of its top leaders and whole “uplines” of distributors are leaving to join XOWii, that MonaVie is losing momentum in the direct-marketing industry and that its distributor and customers bases have become “saturated.”Other claims were that MonaVie’s products and compensation structure are not viable in the current economy, that distributors could triple their income with XOWii and that lucrative position were being held for those who leave MonaVie to join the competitor.

For sure, there are all kinds of reasons why an independent contractor or distributor for one company may wish to join a different company. But inevitably, it causes a lot of challenging legal and moral issues.

So, what do you think about some of these issues? Leave us all a comment below.
(And score other’s comments fairly as you go.)

  • Where should the lines be drawn? Who should be able to leave and join another competing company and when?
  • Who should a person leaving be allowed to invite to go with them?  Who should they not be allowed to invite?
  • Is targeting reps from another company fair play or dirty pool?
  • What is “downline raiding” and is that ever different than leaving and taking a lifelong friend with you?

Of course, much of what you, as a distributor, say here is academic. The MLM companies and their legal firms have already decided for you where they want to draw the lines.

Full article available at The Salt Lake Tribune.

Also, see MonaVie, Facts, News, Reviews

Be Sociable, Share!

{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }

Sara September 8, 2010 at 2:50 pm Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I didn’t read the article, but it sounds like they need Pre-Paid Legal Services…..LMAO!

Reply

Travis March 30, 2010 at 4:18 am Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

If you review the original questions posed , they seem to be asking for opinions on the moral and ethical implications of the various issues brought up in the article. The questions also seem to assume that the government has the right to regulate the network marketing industry with regard to these issues. Isn’t it the government’s responsibility to enforce contract law and to protect the rights and liberties of individuals? So to express our opinions on the moral and ethical implications here is fairly irrelevant. It may be that the federal government has regulated this market, but they only have the right to do so by abusing the interstate commerce clause. Any binding non-compete clauses are in the original contracts and therefore are a matter of contract law enforcement.

My opinion, then, is that contract law should be enforced according to the law and the government should allow these companies to operate in a free-market, regulated only in ways that purely facilitate free-market factors.

The questions I would pose are: 1) Did company A encourage a contract violation between a distributor and company B? 2) Did company A commit defamation against company B?

Reply

Freddie March 9, 2010 at 8:21 am Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

MLM hoping has been going on for years. Excel reps over to ACN, Amway to Usana, and now Mona Vie to XOWii. People can do what ever they want. It is up to the company to keep their distributers by offering great compensation plans and great products.

Reply

Tom March 5, 2010 at 12:03 am Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

The bottom line is people that join companies need to do their homework first instead of simply listening to hyped up promoters! They should read & understand income disclosure statements to see what chance they have to succeed! How motivated would you truly be if you saw that less than 1% in a company are making a living of $50,000.00 or more? How would you feel if over 87% of all people signed up in a company are wholesale customers only? How would you feel if you saw a test report comparing juices to see that Welch’s 100% grape juice beats your wonderful juice in ORAC & FRAP scores plus costs about 1/10th the amount to consume it? Pretty interesting eh?

We truly have a major problem out there today in MLM & that is the HUGE failure rate of 97%+! Why? Many reasons and one is indicated above, HYPE, smoke & mirrors! False statements to lure people, but we have a lot of unethical companies too! We also have compensation plans that are geared to make the company & big recruiters a lot of money, but most will never make enough to even cover their product costs! So, people need to wake up and do their homework on not just HYPE, but facts! This is sad that most will never do this, but get caught up in the dream of making money without research! I will say that if I were to transplant my knowledge in everyone, but hyped up promoters in MLM, there would be a ton of companies that would go under! If we don’t change this industry soon, it may become history when failure is almost certain here! I rest my case!

Reply

Luke February 10, 2010 at 1:38 am Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Hey if you wanna leave then leave but dont contact me and try to lure me over after I have been to your meeting’s and traded buisness cards with you I’m Mona Vie for life simply put let see another new company that is International and one that give’s back like the M.O.R.E Project. If your one of these new companies be a blessing ” DO THE RIGHT THING”..

Reply

Jim February 7, 2010 at 9:02 am Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

I think it is quite simple.

Any person should be able to join as many companies as he/she can afford and are interested in (either from a product or business standpoint).

No-one should be allowed to cross-recruit or raid downlines outside of their personally sponsored within the same company.

If someone chooses to leave a company for any reason they should be allowed to do so. If a company fulfills their needs and adds value, a rep or customer will never leave.

Competition is the key to any free market. If a company or rep feels that they have to use fear and intimidation to coerce or influence someone to stay with them, they do not have enough inherent value to warrant such an action.

Reply

Jeff Mitchell January 16, 2010 at 1:56 pm Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

It is incredible that Monavie would even take a stance like this. Given the fact that Brig and Orin, their most powerful distributors in the company come to them. It is simple. It is called targetting and every industry in the world does it. Now, if Xowii is actually using slander to sponsor more Monave reps that should be the issue of debate.

Also, if Monavie top producers are not business savy enough to understand when they are being lied to about a company they have put their blood sweat and tears into, then Monavie should just let them leave anyway.

Reply

John Counsel December 29, 2009 at 3:18 pm Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

It’s an interesting debate, but it’s just a red herring in most countries.

This kind of “covenant” is nothing but bluff by MLM companies in most countries, where fair trading and trade practices laws view this kind of behaviour as anti-competitive, or an illegal restraint of trade, and outlaw it.

Some countries call it ‘unconscionable conduct’ by big businesses against small business owners. In Australia, a company convicted of this offence faces minimum fines (plus similar costs) of $1.1 MILLION per offence. (That’s PER DISTRIBUTOR involved. You do the math.)

Bottom Line: It’s rarely enforceable in courts of law by MLM companies.

So how do MLM companies get away with it? (Because they do, regularly.)

It’s quite simple: just more of the same… bluff and bullying.

They stop payment of your bonuses (often for a prolonged period “in dispute”), then terminate your distributorship and keep the cash. It’s now up to you to take legal action against them — with no money!

But it usually gets even worse.

In your contract with the company, you typically agreed to forego your right to take legal action in favour of ‘binding arbitration’. Instead, you both appear before a professional arbitrator, who then makes a ruling that has the same effect in law as a court order.

Sure, it’s faster and less expensive than courts and lawyers. But who appoints the arbitrator? And where does most of their business (fees!) come from?

You guessed it: the MLM company!

Do you honestly believe that regular orders AGAINST an MLM company are going to ensure ongoing professional appointments for that arbitrator, by that company, in future?

Here’s the thing: either MLM distributors are independent or they’re not.

Company’s can’t have it both ways: the one thing that terrifies MLM managements is the prospect that their independent distributors could be declared to be employees (because of the REALITY of the way companies behave toward them, regardless of what the paperwork SAYS — courts judge on the basis of what you DO, not what you SAY you do).

If that were to happen, companies would find themselves buried in paperwork, new tax obligations, insurances, annual leave, sickness benefits, HR disputes and issues… the list is almost endless.

It’s time we started presenting a united front as distributors, and remind companies using these predatory tactics that, if they want to act like an employer, perhaps there’s a case to made for having them classified as one.

Watch how fast they back away from THAT one!

(That all said, by all means throw the legal book at ship-jumpers who slander and libel other companies — especially if they were bribed to switch.)

John Counsel

Reply

I told you so December 29, 2009 at 2:13 am Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

Bottom line The principals of this company were wrong. How can you leave Monavie when you made $100k $250k 1 million stay loyal to 1 wife 1 job 1 MLM and you will become rich in so many ways. These guys better jump before the only card is played BANKRUPTCY They cant afford a Class action bleed out. will take millions in legal fees tying them up for 18-24 months only to lose and haveing to pay out millions in damages. My advice to all xowii distributors self terminate remove your name legal from there matrix and run back to Monavie!

Reply

I told you so December 29, 2009 at 2:20 am Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

Never ever choose profits before principals. It never lasts. Now principals before profits last for ever. These crazy ex Monavie distributors who failed in Monavie thinking they could come up with a 0% nutritional product with 0 science and 0 studies. They should be embarassed. What a joke, product tast like koolaid. Comp plan is a Monavie rip off. dsa code of ethics #1 was clearly violated.
A. Code of Conduct

1. Deceptive or Unlawful Consumer or Recruiting Practices
a. No member company of the Association or independent salesperson for a member company shall engage in any deceptive, false, unethical or unlawful consumer or recruiting practice. Member companies shall ensure that no statements, promises or testimonials are made that are likely to mislead consumers or prospective salespeople.

b. Member companies and their independent salespeople must comply with all requirements of law. While this Code does not restate all legal obligations, compliance with all pertinent laws by member companies and their independent salespeople is a condition of acceptance by and continuing membership in DSA.

c. Member companies shall conduct their activities toward other members in compliance with this Code and all pertinent laws.

d. Information provided by member companies and their independent salespeople to prospective or current independent salespeople concerning the opportunity and related rights and obligations shall be accurate and complete. Member companies and their independent salespeople shall not make any factual representation to prospective independent salespeople that cannot be verified or make any promise that cannot be fulfilled. Member companies and their independent salespeople shall not present any selling opportunity to any prospective independent salesperson in a false, deceptive or misleading manner.

e. Member companies and their independent salespeople shall not induce a person to purchase products or services based upon the representation that a consumer can recover all or part of the purchase price by referring prospective consumers, if such reductions or recovery are violative of applicable referral sales laws.

f. Member companies shall provide to their independent salespeople either a written agreement to be signed by both the member company and the independent salesperson, or a written statement containing the essential details of the relationship between the independent salesperson and the member company. Member companies shall inform their independent salespeople of their legal obligations, including their responsibility to handle any applicable licenses, registrations and taxes.

g. Member companies shall provide their independent salespeople with periodic accounts including, as applicable, sales, purchases, details of earnings, commissions, bonuses, discounts, deliveries, cancellations and other relevant data, in accordance with the member company’s arrangement with the independent salesperson. All monies due shall be paid and any withholdings made in a commercially reasonable manner.

h. Independent salespeople shall respect any lack of commercial experience of consumers. Independent salespeople shall not abuse the trust of individual consumers, or exploit a consumer’s age, illness, handicap, lack of understanding or unfamiliarity with a language.

1a. This section does not bring “proselytizing” or “salesforce raiding” disputes under the Code’s jurisdiction, unless such disputes involve allegations of deceptive, unethical or unlawful recruiting practices or behaviors aimed at potential salespeople. In those cases, the section applies. As used in this section, “unethical” means violative of the U.S. DSA Code of Ethics.

The DSA Code Administrator has the authority to make a determination of what is a deceptive, unlawful or unethical consumer or recruiting practice under the Code using prevailing legal standards as a guide. Compliance with any particular law, regulation or DSA Code of Ethics provision is not a defense to such a determination by the DSA Code Administrator that a practice is deceptive, unlawful or unethical. For example, in a sale to a consumer, compliance with the Federal Trade Commission Cooling-Off Rule does not bar the DSA Code Administrator from making a determination that a particular sales practice is deceptive, unlawful or unethical and that a refund or compensation is required.

1. and 2. These sections cover communications about your own company or another company. For example, a distributor for company A makes misleading statements about company B and/or its products to consumers or prospective salespeople.

Reply

Richard Bliss Brooke December 29, 2009 at 6:17 pm Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

Lovely points ” I told you so” but neither company is a DSA member or even an applicant for membership

Reply

Mike Driggers December 28, 2009 at 10:04 pm Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

I believe it is just KARMA.

When monavie started people jumped ship and were loured over with promises and lies from distributors as well. I was one of those that went to monavie because the company I was with was going out of business. I fell in love with monavie program thinking they were different, out of the box thinkers. However as i built to a top position in the company i started to see things differently. Starting with there “OPEN DOOR” Policy

The so called open door policy in my opinion is that it is a one way screen door. It was a great ploy to make them self look good when they were getting sued by Amway for motivating the movement of Orrin Woodward to Monavie.

Dallin has publicly stated in Florida that if a distributor wants to go to another company they can. The rules were you could not recruit cross line or go down-line below your personal recruits. I know of several dozen people in top ranks that followed those rules to the T that were set in place by monavie, yet they were terminated with no questions asked.

Monavies policy is you are guilty first then proven innocent later. year later I personally experience there unfair wrath. Someone had sent an email to monavie compliance saying i was cross recruiting into another opportunity and they believed them from an email and canceled my diamond trip 3 days before I was suppose to leave with my family. All because of some email from someone was sent to them. When i called Monavie to figure out why, they told me because i was cross recruiting. Now folks I have been in this industry for 20 years and i have never cross recruited anyone. I do not need to there is enough people out there to build without doing so. I asked them to prove it they said after the trip they would do so. Knowing what happen to the others in the past getting any type of communication with them after they feal your guilty is like pulling teeth with chop sticks. I know of several people that have gone several months (without pay) with them trying to prove that they are innocent and yet they still have not gotten anywhere with monavie.

What was really funny is that they asked me if I was in a particular company and I told them I was along with several others because I use there service or products. They then told me that there policy is that if you are in any other company you could not take advantage of any trips or prizes if you were a diamond or above. to make sure i did not go on the trip. They were trying to find some reason. I asked them when was this in the policy because I never read anything like they had mention in the policy and they told me they put it in the first of 09 . I told them well that was unfair and that the day they put that in there policy (that nobody new about) i was screwed. I told them that I am in several company’s because of there products or service but not building and that I was in these company’s long before I join monavie. However they did not care but because they found another excuse that i am in those company’s i could not go on the trip anyways. (Funny thing is I flew out there and stayed on my own dime to be with friends and down-line)

I resign that day because of their lack of integrity. I know several six and seven figure earners that are in multiple company’s because of there products or services and they were allowed to go.

There is nothing wrong with using other company’s products/services as long as you are not cross recruiting from that particular company then you should have the right to belong to any company.

Now that Xowii comes in the picture that was formulated from a former monavie rep and he is living the entrepreneurial dream. Monavie has a problem when there reps want to join the company especially because they have started to get momentum pulling more and more reps from monavie. I know of several 1000’s that have gone over Xowii so now monavie’s open door policy gets kicked out the door. I myself am in the Xowii company but not building. I hope they make it big. There are some really good people there. If not that is part of the risk.

Here is the bottom line if people feel there is an opportunity to use another company’s product/service or to build it as a business should have the right to do so. If they think they can then go for it. If i want to own a McDonald’s and a Burger King i can. If i want to hire a person from McDonald’s to Burger King then why not. I know several top producers collecting checks from multiple company’s. Why not. If they can.

For monavie’s situation, if they can’t handle competition then they should close there doors. Monavie reps have enticed top producers from other company’s why cant others do the same and the statements above they are using as grounds for the suit is all opinions.

Reply

Jonathan I Gillardi December 28, 2009 at 5:07 pm Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

Bottom Line is that Dallin’s money will crush Richard Kelly’s, As I have met with Richard in his office many times in Irvine, CA and he I know is at fault. He went against a company and has made promises to myself and partners that never panned out. I am surpirsed this didn’t happen sooner…

Reply

Peter Arnold December 28, 2009 at 12:42 pm Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

Hey Lou:

Excellent topic!

For what it’s worth, here’s my own 03-cents worth (Canadian :>)…

—————————————————————-

LAWSUITS – When I started in this great industry in 1986 (Amway), lawsuits were rare – but things have indeed changed!

DRA – Having been on the Board Of Directors of the Distributor Rights Association ( http://www.TheDRA.org ) representing Canada, for almost 4-years – I (we) have seen a “flood” of companies involved in lawsuits ((MonaVie / Zrii / Mannatech / XOWii / Evolv / Life Vantage / Melaleuca / Stream Energy / Pre Paid Legal / Amway / Ignite / Univera / Usana / Orem / Qivana / Forever Green / Lightyear Alliance / Advo Care / iJango / Vision International / Global Verge / on and on…)).

As our MLM industry continues to expand and mature, I believe we’ll be seeing more and more lawsuits – just as there are in ‘any other’ industry.

MLM – Over the years, as a Financial Advisor and a Business Consultant by profession, I’ve analyzed a lot of ‘deals’ for high net worth clients (investments, business offers, tax shelters, joint ventures, etc) – but I continue believe there is NO finer “business model” on the planet than that of Network Marketing. It is one of the finest creations ever developed by the human mind – regardless of whether one builds it ONline – or OFFline – or both. It really has no equal for the average person, to be able to gain complete time freedom and economic independence.

No – it’s far from ‘perfect’ – and I used to be one of it’s biggest critics – but show me any business that ‘is’ without flaws! :>)

—————————————————————-

Some DOS And DONTS – Like some of the others, I believe we, as Affiliates / Distributors, should be allowed to “move to other companies” if we choose (for whatever reasons) without any non-compete agreements. I also believe we should be safe in bringing with us, any of our “personally sponsored” partners – IF they choose to join us. The companies have a right to “protect themselves” and their assets, obviously – and therefore, “cross recruiting” ought to be an absolute no-no for Affiliates.

—————————————————————-

REALITIES – If I may, here are some areas that I believe remain “major obstacles” to future growth in our industry – and to the “relationship” between Companies and their Reps…

BIZ ‘EVALUATION’ – Most of the (so-called) industry pros almost always “leave out” some major criteria when recommending to others HOW to select an MLM company / opportunity: Obviously, they’ll tell us that the “usual” areas need to be investigated — the track record and reputation of the company, and its owners — the products — the comp plan — the training & support — the marketing systems, etc. BUT – they “avoid” the far more critical issues, such as:

——————————

— (1)-The “Business Ratio”? – The company should have an excellent (verifiable) and healthy “business ratio” of CUSTOMERS to REPS (ideally, a 75%-to-25% ratio, or better – otherwise, it will become unstabe, and begin to unravel at some point). Currently, the industry is littered with companies that rely almost exclusively on RECRUITING and SELF CONSUMPTION of products (monthly Autoship). When Reps are unable to make CUSTOMER sales, due to product prices or a lack of consumer demand, they will undoubtedly be encouraged to “buy for themselves” and endlessly recruit others to do the same. This is “OPPORTUNITY-driven demand” – and it leads to people buying things they otherwise would never buy (without a Comp Plan attached) – at prices they would never pay – in quantities they would never otherwise consume.

——————————

— (2)- What Is The “Attrition Rate”? – It should have a (verifiable) low “drop out” rate (attrition is the “curse” of the Home Business industry)

——————————

— (3)- Is It a “Good FIT”? – Potential Reps need to carefully determine – in advance – whether the business being considered will FIT them properly, in terms of their time, money and marketing skills (one or more of these attributes will be ‘required’ by most companies – but not ‘all’). As well, there are some businesses that they could “never” build successfully – no matter how hard they try – because of their particular ‘personality’ trait (a KEY consideration).

——————————

— (4)- Policies & Procedures – This is the LEGAL AGREEMENT we sign when we “join” an MLM company (and sadly, it’s usually signed without even “reading” it, let alone carefully “studying” it).
= By itself, the P&P document will tell us “everything” we need to know about the integrity (or otherwise) of the company owners. It may be in the “fine print” – and we may need to “dig” for it – but the P&Ps will truly reveal a company’s thinking – its heart – its attitude towards the field. It spells out the Corp. ‘attitude’ behind its – Terms & Conditions – its Comp Plan – its Customer Service – it’s Product Research – its Customer Satisfaction Guarantees – its whole Field Support Structure – and much more.

= Red Flags – Many companies have a “ton” of RED FLAGS in their P&Ps and in their T&Cs (Terms and Conditions) — I call them “gotchas” — and many have P&Ps that run 20-40 -to over 100 pages long! Many P&Ps are not even ‘openly displayed’ on their website Home Page.

= Hidden P&Ps – To me, it is outrageous that any MLM company would NOT show a link – easy to see – right on their Home Page – to their Policies & Procedures. Some companies actually “hide” their P&Ps – and//or won’t let you even “see” them until you’re almost signed up – or worse still, not “until after you join” – amazing. What does that tell us ((perhaps they ‘do’ have something to hide))?

= The P&Ps are drawn up by the company’s bank of attorneys – to protect the “Company” – not the “Affiliare / Distributor” – and it gives the “company” all the control, power and ownership ((of ALL the assets – the products, services, offices, promotional material, websites, compensation plans – and the “downlines”)).

= Many (perhaps most) of these P&P documents contain some very serious “gotchas” – minefields, that Reps need to become educated about, and keenly aware of – such as “the potential for wrongful / unjust terminations” – the potential for “lawsuits” – the right to impose negative changes in the Comp Plan – the right to “go direct” and bypass the Rep — all things that can wreck absolute havoc on families, both financially and emotionally.

= Economy – More and more people right now are “searching” for financial alternatives to an uncertain future. Our industry holds the “perfect answer” for many of them, including those who previously might “never” have looked in our direction => some very intelligent, ambitious and talented – executives – professionals – baby boomers, etc. (those who usually have a healthy ‘Rolodex’ too! :->) This reality alone, could become a “major bonanza” for us in this industry.

BUT, quite frankly, if most were to “study” in advance, the Network Marketing ‘P&P Agreement’ (or had their advisors review it, for them) – they would NOT like what they see — they would run. This is a sad statement on our industry. P&Ps need to be revisited by the companies — they need to be totally re-designed, in an effort to bring about an authentic, long term “business partnership” environment between Companies and their Reps.

= NOTE – Obviously, the companies DO have every right to protect themselves legally (and thus, their Reps) – that goes without saying. However, many of these (often, boiler-plate) P&Ps contain language that most lay people cannot understand – but, bottom line => Reps do not – “own their OWN” business – as is usually promoted in the glossy print ads.

They are strictly “commissioned Sales Reps” for the company. Not that this is a “bad” thing – it’s just the reality. Yes, Network Marketers are IC’s (Independent Contractors) – strictly for TAX purposes, so as not to be treated as Employees – but suffice to say, they are not IBOs (Independent Business OWNERS).

= IF (potential) Reps would only take the time to “print out” and “read” and “study” those P&Ps first – (or have a legal mind do it for them) – BEFORE ever agreeing to them, and signing on the dotted line – they might avoid the terrible heartache that they could face later. Again – this is not to “put down” the many fine MLM companies out there – no. This is only to strongly encourage “due dilligence” – and to give a “heads up” about this

—————————————————————-

— (5)- Integrity – This is SO important to look for. It should be the very “foundation” of the company’s Leadership. It is moral soundness – it is honor – truth – character – freedom from corrupting influence, or motive. It is about practicing the Golden Rule. It is about treating people with respect – without judgement. It is the most ‘fundamental source’ of one’s personal worth. INTEGRITY should cause the Management / Ownership to provide the highest level of CARE and ACCOUNTABILITY to those they lead. Potential Reos need to look for it – in the company’s – Vision – in their Mission – in their Leadership – in their Purpose – in their Values – in their Promises => so they will always “know” they have the SECURITY of being able to pass our businesses on – to their children and their children’s children.

—————————————————————-

‘SELF’ BRANDING – My own strong recommendation is to NOT make an “MLM” be one’s BUSINESS. To do so, Reps are leaving themselves open to possible abuse – they’re far too vulnerable if that becomes their “primary” source of income. Instead, their MLM should be (an important) “part” of their overall BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (diversification + multiple [Affiliate] income streams = both for personal protection and for higher profitability).

This is one of the reasons that some of the industry ‘pioneers’ (like Joe Schroder, Mike Dillard and Ann Sieg) are moving from a (traditional) NETWORK Marketing mindset – to an ATTRACTION Marketing mindset.

The “only” product Reps should ever lead with is => THEMSELVES ((being the CEO of “YOU. Inc.” – to build relationships “first” — “before” introducing the products / biz opp / comp plan, etc)).

They should brand “ME.com” (expanded to “WE.com”) – and not the companies / products / services, etc. It reduces the risk greatly – it makes them far less vulnerable.

Personal Branding is about “the art of selling OURSELVES” — it’s our “identity” — our USP (Unique Selling Proposition) – something that will become a part of the DNA of the 21st century in our industry

—————————————————————-

Enough said — I have a ‘passion’ for this industry (PROFESSION) — end of sermon! :>)

————————————————————
More Detailed Info => http://www.MLM-Wise.com
————————————————————-

————————————————————-
More Detailed Info => http://www.MLM-Wiser.com
————————————————————–

Again – appreciate your topic – “MLM-TheWholeTruth.com” does a tremendous service for our industry!

Warmly / Peter A.

Peter Arnold, CLU, CFC / Founder
Business Achievwers Academy / Canada

Reply

Canamoly December 28, 2009 at 12:25 pm Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

Sounds to me like the ‘people paid to join a company” will quickly leave that company for another in the same circumstances. Truly a black mark on our industry when people only join if bribed.

Reply

Jan December 28, 2009 at 10:48 am Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

I have heard from various sources that Monavie actually pays an enormous sign up bonus when it is “enticing” a top distributor to come over to their side. If that is true, it is WRONG that they would sue another company for “stealing” their distributors. As far as the slander, well that is not good, if it is true.

Bottom line…if people don’t have good leadership, if they are with a sub-standard company or if they aren’t making money…they will be looking for “something better”.

Reply

Diane Stephenson December 27, 2009 at 11:52 pm Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

There are some good comments here.

I do believe continual jumping from one ‘new’ company to the newest company on the block is counter-productive, but there are times that a change is necessary. I have had to do this when, after being moderately successful and growing in a company, the company then changed the marketing plan that stripped me of my income and then I lost my downline. When this happens, you tend to lose incentive. Do I continue to kick a dead horse? Not very productive. Also, I have been in companies that went under – obviously a change is necessary then. I have never tried to recruit downline into a new company. I tell people what I’m doing and if they choose to come with me, I’ll gladly sign them up, but I won’t try to coerce anyone with promises of greater success where I’m going. It may be right for them and may not.

But I believe any recruiting of this type should be limited to your personally-sponsored people, not the people they have recruited.

I also think it is morally wrong to run down a company just to recruit their distributors into your newest venture. Slander will end up having its own repercussions on the slanderer. If someone tells lies about one company, how do you know they aren’t telling lies about the company they are promoting? There is the trust element that has already been mentioned. But if there is truly evidence of wrong-doing on the part of the company, I see nothing wrong in warning others about what is going on. The key word here is evidence. Not hearsay.

On the other hand, I don’t think any company has the right to dictate what an independent distributor can do (I qualify that statement: there must be some definite guidelines as to integrity and policies and procedures). I am personally involved in several companies, but most of them are for personal use and/or retail to a few friends. I like the products and prefer to buy wholesale and make enough retail profit to purchase my own products. I’m not in the least interested in building a business in these.

One of the companies I’m involved with states in their policies that you cannot advance if you are involved in any way in another company. I can see not being allowed to promote a competitor – that makes good sense. But if I’m selling phones (this is just hypothetical – it’s not a phone company I’m talking about) why should I be “punished” because I want to use and/or sell energy drinks from another company? Fortunately for me this company is not one I want to build, but what about others who would like to build it but would also like to purchase supplements from another company – products not available from this company – that will address personal health issues?

I don’t think there is one pat answer for this dilemma. Integrity, trust, truthfulness are important issues that every network marketer should operate by. But there will always be those who choose any method to get what they want and who don’t care who they step on along the way. Network marketers need to be discerning about what they believe and how they operate. Doing your due diligence in researching a company, product, upline sponsor, etc. goes a long way to protecting yourself and your downline.

Wishing you success and prosperity.
Diane

Reply

Manfred Raunigg December 27, 2009 at 11:03 pm Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

I totally agree with all the above and I really like Richard Brooke’s point!

I have been in this industry for 12 years and very successfully for the past 10 after 2 companies that didn’t last…. I learned what to look for and for me THE most important part in choosing is not the company nor the products but the people who I join as my sponsors.

If there is not 100% TRUST (which is the key word) in those people then it’s like getting married to a partner I don’t know well enough, my be like but may be not enough to TRUST them 100%….

So…on the subject of ‘stealing’ distributors it is the same as in any relationship… if a guy can ‘steal’ my wife from me, then I didn’t love her enough….

I am 100% committed to the people I joined over 10 years ago and with that goes the commitment to the company the products etc… WHY would I change company???

The people who jump easy will jump easy again so they will not be of value to anyone in terms of predictable, sustainable residual income.

My take on the rules is that no company has the right to tell their INDEPENDENT distributors what they can and can’t do in regards to joining another company… it’s free enterprise after all isn’t it ???

Integrity takes time to show and the companies that have been out there for some time and the people who have been committed to helping other people succeed (as that is the only way to true residual income) will win in the long run over those start ups that come in with a lot of noise and don’t last…

The truth is easy to find these days if one really wants to know, so I am not worried about false information being used to ‘lure’ people from one into another company…. as has been said, they would not have lasted anyway if they move easily on false information. Here’s to INTEGRITY one can TRUST !!!

Manfred Raunigg (New Zealand)

Reply

Richard Bliss Brooke December 27, 2009 at 7:15 pm Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

Knock offs knocking off the Knockoffs. Live by the sword bleed by it. Sounds like Zowiepowie is slandering Mona vie which is far more serious a claim than interfering with contractual relations.
United we Stand, Divided we fall.

Reply

Lane Romero-Reiss December 27, 2009 at 6:41 pm Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1

I agree with Bob about distributors who are easily swayed from one company to another, to a point. Sometimes people leave because of the company itself, and sometimes they feel they will get better upline support if they move to company B. This may or may not be the case, as the ones doing the courting are always putting their best foot forward. The real test is the kind of support being offered several months after the distributor has jumped ship.

As far as who a distributor can take with them, I think it should be limited to anyone they personally enrolled in company A. If they want more of their downline to go with them, then it needs to at least go through the enrollment chain.

My personal opinion now is that it is best to get on board with a company that has a long, solid history, rather than jump on the next big thing. This is industry is supposed to be about creating lasting, residual income. Too many people view MLM as a lottery ticket, and when it doesn’t pay off, they are jumping to the next ‘drawing’.

Lane Romero-Reiss

Reply

Bob Firestone December 26, 2009 at 1:26 pm Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

The whole issue of moving from company to company is a big gray area. For the most part non-compete agreements are almost impossible to enforce unless there is specific technological or insider knowledge. So blocking a regular distributor from jumping from one company to another is difficult and not worth the time or money to try and stop.

When they go and start poaching the downline then that is a different story. The distributor is taking customers of the company that the distributor was already paid for is a lot easier to enforce.

I don’t see anything wrong with Company A trying to recruit Company B’s distributors. If they jump that means they weren’t that sold on Company B to begin with and it was only a matter of time before they jumped ship.

Distributors who jump from Company to company are like people who cheat on their spouses. If you are the mistress don’t be surprised when they cheat on you.

Just a note there is a typo, Salt Lake City is in UT not NV.

Reply

Mark December 29, 2009 at 8:10 am Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

This isn’t about distributors leaving, it’s about slanderous and false statements. Big difference!

Reply

Mike Foster March 18, 2010 at 3:09 pm Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

It’s issues like this that just give the whole industry a bad name. It’s like beating your head against a wall thinking it will stop hurting eventually. The Network marketing companies that keep coming out slander others and then try to steal their distributors during prelaunches. I wish MLM companies would stop attacking each other. That why so many bad things are said about some of the best MLM companies on the planet.

Reply

Angela Garcia July 20, 2011 at 12:08 am Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

It is complete foul play for distributors or even execs from one company to slander other companies and/or lie about the company to potential new buyers/distributors/customers. Hearing about people from XOWII allegedly slandering MonaVie was a complete shock and really disappointing to me. Taking your downline with you is one thing if they werent sold to begin with, but if they are good for the company and you are just being corrupt and selfish, then that is not cool. Also, getting into the information of potential distributors from a company other than yours for any purpose is not fair play and sounds illegal. I am not a lawyer and by no means have any legal background but to me it sounds sketchy.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Thoughtful and constructive comments that benefit network marketing professionals and the industry will be accepted and published after review.
We will not publish rude or insulting comments, plugs for your company or product, or generally non-helpful or self-promoting content.


Previous post:

Next post: