| Comment Number: | 522418-07650 |
| Received: | 7/11/2006 1:04:52 PM |
| Organization: | Partylite Gifts, Inc. |
| Commenter: | Rebecca Ferguson |
| State: | CO |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to give you my thoughts on the proposed rulemaking regarding business opportunities. Although I appreciate your efforts to eliminate fraudulent network marketers and pyramid schemes, I do not see how your proposed rule will really prevent individuals with dishonest intentions from continuing their scheme. If a fraudulent person is intent on ripping off someone's money, then being required to wait seven days and give 10 contact names would not necessarily stop them. They could simply falsify the dates and hire people to give false testimonials for them, whereas honest business owners such as myself would find our business seriously hampered by laws to follow these rules. Not only would waiting seven days cause great difficulties for someone wanting to start a PartyLite business, and dampen their enthusiasm for this great business.(Specifically, in my business I collect orders and money for candle products at a show and if my hostess decides she wants to turn that show into a business she would have to wait seven days, federal law only allows me to hold money collected for candle products for five days), But it would also infringe on existing consultants privacy and may lead to a higher discouragement and drop out rate. I know I would not appreciate having my already very busy day interrupted by phone calls from potential new consultants that I do not know at all wanting to know details about my personal business and how much income I make. Our business model is the best in the business. As a whole PartyLite Consultants are very honest. We already publish real incomes and real dollar amounts for all levels of consultants in our business. However, being required to give names of ten consultants geographically closest to the potential new consultant is prohibitive to that new person. If I were a new person starting a new business I could see that I would either not call those people as I did not know them and would feel intimidated by that, or if I did call them then I would not find very many of them home or even get a return phone call from that consultant. How can you enforce requiring someone to call a person back to give him or her information about their business. So how can this proposed rule stop fraudulent persons who are intent on scamming individuals? I do agree that there is a need for laws that protect individuals, but I do not see how these proposed laws will ensure their protection. Why not have a public listing of fraudulent companies and schemes available online at your website and give regular updates? Also, there is such a thing as personal accountability. While it is unfortunate when a person is scammed, he or she would do well to research and consider carefully before jumping into something that "sounds too good to be true." How about a program to educate the public about what information to acquire and where to go for more reports on companies prior to signing up. I know it made a big difference for me when I was able to go to the Direct Sellers Association website and find my company there. Thank you for considering these thoughts. Feel free to contact me if you would like. Sincerely, Rebecca Ferguson