Business Opportunity Rule #522418-12696

Submission Number:
522418-12696
Commenter:
Robert Witzel
State:
IL
Initiative Name:
Business Opportunity Rule
Let my first comment be that I applaud the FTC for trying to protect consumers and put an end to fraudulent/misleading business "opportunities". I concur that several things need to change but that the proposal in it's current form would actually hurt legitimate bussinesses like QUIXTAR. I am a QUIXTAR business owner and have always been impressed at the way they go above and beyond to protect the consumer and ensure proper representation of the facts. The current proposal recommends a seven day waiting period after disclosure for a prospect to register. I believe this would be a good idea in many cases. In the case of companies like QUIXTAR that have unconditional, long term money back guarantees, I don't feel it's needed. Companies that allow people to make money off the registration fee are the problem and they are the ones that should be targeted. This is not the case with QUIXTAR and other legitimate companies as well. I don't feel giving a list of references is necessary. It violates the privacy of the 10 people whose names are given. In our case, prospects have the opportunity to meet as many business owners as they want at any of our weekly seminars or personal training meetings. This could also penalize the sponsor who could lose a prospect to a potentially agressive business owner whiuch would not be fair. I don't feel that giving a list of lawsuits would be necessary for a cxompany like QUIXTAR either. They are registered with the Better Business Bureau as well as the Direct Selling Association and any information of this type can usually be found there. Under the proposed rule, even cases with no real merit would be listed until disproved. By then, the damage would have already been done. Dishonest companies would ignore the rule anyway so the only people hurt would be legitimate companies like ours. This rule should be eliminated or only used on a case by case basis. Companies like QUIXTAR who have a great track record with the FTC should not be required to follow this. QUIXTAR requires all sponsors to provide their prospects with an FTC approved potential income statement (SA 4400) and these are the only numbers that are to be given to a prospect during disclosure. If more than that would be required, then it should be a simple, standard, easily understood example. The SA 4400 already lists the "average monthly gross income" for IBO's so in QUIXTAR's case, it should not be a factor. Because QUIXTAR IBOs are required to only disclose the figures in the SA 4400, I do not feel we should be required to provide prospects with substantiation of our personal income. The good thing about the SA 4400, FTC document is that it shows a prospect what they can achieve if they follow the steps and do the work. If a potential sponsor has not been totally active, their current income would not represent what the prospect could earn if they DO put in the proper effort. Using only the FTC SA 4400 would prevent the prospect from getting a false impression of the potential by looking at the income of someone not doing currently doing the work. Again, I feel that changes could definitely be made because of the scams that are out there. I have lost many prospects over the years because of the bad experience they had with less than above board companies. Just like it's not fair for them to judge our business based on the actions of companies and individuals with no integrity, it would not be fair for a legitimate business like QUIXTAR to be punished due to the actions of those same companies and scams. The proposal in it's current format would do just that. I would respectfully ask that you consider the above recommended changes and give strong consideration to the solid, honest business practices of QUIXTAR and other legitimate companies and make this proposal more directive and limiting to the companies that are actually casuing all of the problems. Thank you for your consideration, Robert J. Witzel