| Comment Number: | 522418-02303 |
| Received: | 6/15/2006 11:32:44 AM |
| Organization: | sole propriotor |
| Commenter: | Gene Clack |
| State: | MO |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I welcome the intent and efforts of the FTC to protect persons from unethical practices. I have been in this type of business for almost thirty years...three companies, including Xango, LTC, have been honest . I still represent all three in that they each provide different products. I have in that same time frame been approached by and seen others taken in by unscrupulous people. I join you in wanting these practrices to cease. They prey on, primarily, persons who have had little or no business experience, are in the need for more income, and suceptible to "pie-in-the-sky" schemes by clever presenters. A legitimate company does not offer, or make any claims, that are beyond their compensation plan. Here, however, is where some difficuty arises. Compensation plans are usually very new to persons considering the business and is where some companies/persons can and do distort the projected income. This can happen in a legitimate company by individuals that lack integrity. So, even with clarity, which benefits the honest endeavor of all concerned, some have and will misrepresent the facts. This, however, is not peculair to this industry (vis a vis - Enron, etc.) I would plead that the old adage..."don't throw the baby out with the bath water"....would be a most approriate guideline. May I suggest that the FTC maintain a list of companies that have passed your scrutiny and displayed compliance that a prospective enquirer could request and be provided for the openess of all...the FTC, the company, and the individual you are seeking to protect. I am now 72. My wife and I treasure our experiences in the business....income, and relationships. There are millions more like us who rely on this as income. It would be, it seems to me, unseemly to punish the many to prevent the few. In addition, we have had most of our customers for this more than 30 years and they want to continue to receive the benefits of the products and service we provide. Thank you for opportunity to address this issue and your invitation for us to present our view(z). The first test of the business practices of this industry were aimed at the AMWAY corporation. The outcome set the standard for elimination the practice of a "pryamid". That ruling served us all well for a time...that procuct movement was the criteria...not the selling of distributorships. But, as in most things, there are always those who look for and find ways to get around the rules thus requiring diligence by those in this business and those charged with protecting the public. I know you will find that legitimate companies welcome and want to participate in setting standards. To have to defend company practices, in court, is something that any good company does not want...goes to great lengths to establish legal guidelines that negate the need for court action and seeks to monitor the activities of its distrubutors to for prevention.