| Comment Number: | 522418-07052 |
| Received: | 7/8/2006 8:34:09 PM |
| Organization: | Quixtar |
| Commenter: | Timothy Field |
| State: | VA |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
My wife and I are "Sapphire" IBOs in the Quixtar business model and have been a part of the organization since 2001. I am writing in response to the proposals regarding our direct selling market. I am thrilled that the FTC is anxious to protect the public against scams in the marketplace while also concerned about not unnecessarily inhibiting true businesses. After reading the FTC proposed changes, there are two sections I feel need eliminating or adjusting. The first segment is the 7-day wait period before registering in business. I believe this proposal is unfair and not necessary. If a person is excited about a sham business, they will still be excited about joining after 7 days. It is not the time frame that aids in evaluation of a business, but the credibility the organization is able to put forth. Instead, I believe the FTC should require all business opportunities to give a 100% money-back guarentee up to 180 days, as the Quixtar corporation does. This allows for a longer evaluation period for any new prospect while not hindering the growth of business in the meantime. The second segment I would like to contest is the necessary 10 names and numbers of local references. I think we can all agree that people do not want their privacy invaded by unknown callers requesting an "interview" about the business opportunity they are looking into. In this day and age of caller-id, people do not pick up the phone if a number is unrecognized. Therefore, even an honest and legal business would be penalized by people's wish for privacy at home. Furthermore, I do not believe that the 10 name list would accomplish the goal of limiting scams. If an illegal organization has worked hard enough to scam people, coming up with a list of 10 supportive names/numbers would not be difficult. They could easily list the ten members of the original scam or even pay some shady people to speak postively about their "organization." Instead, the business opportunities should be able to be evaluated by other viable entities. For example, Quixtar has partnered with Fortune 500 companies such as Barnes & Nobles, Office Depot, and Visa. These corporations certainly have sent their teams of attorneys to "check out" and evaluate the legitimacy of Quixtar, Inc. These affiliations speak much louder than a biased list of ten referrals. I truly believe that what the average American person needs is a clearinghouse that approves the various business models in America. The SBA regulates in a similar way. The best resource for an American would be a list on a .gov website listing legitimate business opportunities. Then a new prospect evaluating an opportunity could merely go online to see if their opportunity is indeed a scam or legitimate business. Although this would add work for a government agency, the end result would the exact goals of the FTC proposals: limiting American exposure to scams while not hindering legitimate business opportunities. I applaud the FTC in its goals, yet sincerely believe the proposals as currently written are only hindering the legitimate businesses. As written, even a mild scam artist would be able to navigate through the proposed changes. I believe there are better ways to achieve the FTC's goals. Thank you for your time and considereation. Sincerely, Tim and Lynn Field