| Comment Number: | 522418-01992 |
| Received: | 6/13/2006 11:20:40 AM |
| Organization: | Home and Garden Party |
| Commenter: | Linda McKenzie |
| State: | WV |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam: I am concerned about the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. I believe that it could hinder me from continuing as a Designer with Home and Garden Party. Some of the sections in the proposed rule will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for me to sell. I have been in direct sales for more than 10 years. I became a Designer in my company because I felt the products were exceptional and I wanted to earn some additional income. I've enjoyed my work but, the future of my family is dependent on the stability of the direct selling industry. One of the most confusing and burdensome sections of the proposed rule is The seven-day waiting period to enroll new designers is extremely burdensome. The Home and Garden Party sales kit only costs $149. People buy TVs, cars, and other items that cost much more and they do not have to wait seven days. This waiting period gives the impression that there might be something wrong with the company or the compensation plan. I also think this seven-day waiting period is unnecessary, because Home and Garden Party already has a buyback policy for sales kits purchased by a salesperson within the last twelve months. Under this waiting period requirement, I will need to keep very detailed records when I first speak to someone about Home and Garden Party and will then need to send in many reports to my company headquarters. What an unnecessary headache. The proposed rule also calls for the release of any information regarding lawsuits involving misrepresentation, or unfair or deceptive practices. It does not matter if the company was found innocent. Today, anyone or any company can be sued for almost anything. It does not make sense to me that I would have to disclose these lawsuits unless Home and Garden Party is found guilty. Otherwise, Home and Garden Party and I are put at an unfair advantage even though Home and Garden Party has done nothing wrong. Finally, the proposed rule requires the disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest to the prospective purchaser. This may be close to violating privacy laws. I am glad to provide references, but in this day of identity theft, I am very uncomfortable giving out the personal information of individuals (without their approval) to strangers. Also, giving away this information could damage the business relationship of the references who may be involved in other companies or businesses including those of competitors. In order to get the list of the 10 prior purchasers, I will need to send the address of the prospective purchaser to Home and Garden Party headquarters and then wait for the list. I also think the following sentence required by the proposed rule will prevent many people from wanting to sign up as a salesperson - “If you buy a business opportunity from the seller, your contact information can be disclosed in the future to other buyers.” People are very concerned about their privacy and identity theft. They will be reluctant to share their personal information with individuals they may have never met. I believe this proposed new rule has many unintended consequences, there are better ways of protecting consumers. Respectfully, Linda McKenzie