Monitium Review
By Len Clements
Response to the Rebuttal of Rory Jean-Jacques
5/12/2011
Note: Mr. Jean-Jacques 's original rebuttal is in red type. My response is in blue type. The original Monitium
Review can be read in its entirety here: http://www.marketwaveinc.com/viewalert.asp?id=144
Since I've already reviewed the Monitium program in great detail (with many exclusions) on my new "Inside
Network Marketing"[1] podcast, and half of my typing fingers ache (my right index – old age Len, try
Glucosamine and Chondroitin), here's the short version (this is short, you’re kidding) (I was being sarcastic) of
why Monitium's portfolio system won't work: All the same reasons it's NEVER worked! Ever. Of the dozens of
similar, or virtually identical portfolio/umbrella deals that have spring up and died over the past 25 years - yes,
this "entirely new approach" has been around since at least the mid-1980s - not a single one has managed to
produce a single person who has earned even $10,000 for a single month[2]. Not a single one has managed to
make it to it's 10th birthday, and only a single one made it past their fifth.[3]
Just as well they never gave up on landing on the moon. We might never has discovered the world was round
by actually travelling to find out. And, scientists and physicians thought that 4 minute mile could never be run in
less than 4 minutes, because your lungs would blow up. Thank goodness mankind has a habit of disproving
theory. In this day and age, who looks to the past as an indicator of future performance? We look only to the
past to learn from it.
Then why was Monitium designed around the same theories and concepts as all previous portfolio failures?
Your analogies are not applicable because significantly different methods were used over time in our attempts
to reach the moon, many attempts were made to find out if a portfolio program would work before Monitium,
and the reason I (and many others) believe portfolio programs won't work is not based on "theory" but rather
historical precedence, logic, and basic mathematics.
I agree that the IDEA is not new, but the APPROACH is. The success is in the EXECUTION of the idea, which
Len has failed to cover as he has no idea how far Monitium has come or where it is about to go. One only
needs to look at Monitium’s platform to see how well they have executed so far.
By identifying several previous portfolio programs I intended to reveal two things: 1) Monitium's claim that this
concept is an "entirely new approach" and "a new way of winning in this great industry" is not accurate, and; 2)
portfolio programs have a 100% failure rate throughout MLM history. They did not say they are employing a
"new approach" to portfolio programs, they clearly said Monitium is an "entirely new approach" and "new way"
of succeeding within the MLM industry. You have just confirmed my first point. Secondly, for the long history of
portfolio failures to be irrelevant here you must offer more than "they were different", or words to that effect. You
must identify how Monitium is significantly different, and then how those differences resolve all of the flaws that
doomed so many previous portfolio programs.
In fact, I reviewed Monitium's website, technology and documentation thoroughly before writing my review. The
major flaws I identified are in no way resolved by a higher, more sophisticated level of "execution". If a website
were to promote a winning lottery system, a supplement that cures cancer, or a perpetual motion machine, no
level of technical sophistication or enhanced presentation is going to overcome the laws of math, physics or the
land.
Just from memory, here are just a few of the portfolio deals that have tried to make this concept work in the
past: Who cares, we learn from the past, we improve, we use new technology and now we are now doing it.
Every good idea is preceded by “failures” (I prefer to call them “learnings”) and then the idea is eventually
executed well.
I'm still waiting to hear what was learned by these past failures and how Monitium has resolved these flaws. I
have identified a number of specific issues that cause portfolio programs to fail in the past, and concerns about
aspects of Monitium that are specific to it today. I have made a lengthy case describing how Monitium is
actually operating is a very similar, if not identical (in some cases) manner in which these previous failures did.
Secure Independence
The MLM Alliance
Assurance Network
Team Building Project[4]
Lifetime Downline
Portfolio International
Page One
Bosset Group[5]
InVestWorks
FunTimeNow.com
PAP Systems
The top three on the list were elaborate, professionally ran operations back in the early 1990s (10 years ago;
good benchmark Len) (These previous portfolios failed for many of the same reasons I believe still apply to
Monitium – it is true that I did not factor in how many times the Earth has rotated around the Sun since these
previous portfolio failures occurred.) that offered practically the identical concept now being offered by
Monitium, only with different member companies and no internet presence, of course (Oh, so something IS
different; JUST the internet, no big deal Len, the internet hasn’t really changed the way we do things very
much) I like the way Len just brushes over the fact that they never had the internet back then and then
proceeds to project those failures into a future where the internet now plays a huge part in our everyday lives.
This is an obvious attempt at diversion. I never said the internet is not a significant technological advancement.
However, the failure of these previous portfolio programs was not even remotely related to the lack of an
internet to promote or implement them (and Secure Independence did have an internet presence for a short
time – right before their demise). Once again, for your rebuttal point to be valid you must identify how the lack of
an internet presence caused, or significantly contributed to, the failure of these past programs, and how
Monitium's use of the internet resolves these issues. So far your responses have been little more than
condescending, sarcastic, denials with no supporting facts. So no, Monitium is not at all "a new way of winning
in this great industry".
Wow, early 1990’s. I think we have moved considerably in a decade Len. Ever heard of Cloud Computing,
which among other technological advances may make some things possible that were not possible even 3
years ago, never mind 10 years ago? And, thanks to Cloud Computing operating costs are way lower and more
flexible today than 10 years ago. IT takes up a considerable amount of your variable expenses, especially in a
MLM environment where IT is being tweaked and updated daily.
Once again, please identify how the absence of "Cloud Computing" caused or contributed to the demise of
100% of all previous portfolio programs before Monitium? How does "Cloud Computing" resolve even one of
the myriad critical issues I identified in my review? Saying only that this technological advancement "may" make
"some things" possible for Monitium that were not available to these previous portfolio programs is not a
rebuttal to my point. What things? How?
Basically, a portfolio program is one where a downline is build and tracked within the portfolio system itself, for
a fee, and then once an actual MLM company is added to the portfolio all of the participants are placed into the
hierarchy of that company, with all lines of sponsorship intact. Members are then asked to activate their position
in that company with a product purchase. When a second company is added the entire structure is plugged into
that company's downline. Those who are earning enough in Company #1 to cover the qualifying product
purchases in Company #2 are then asked to start buying products from the second company. And so on as
more companies are added to the portfolio. The alleged benefit to this system is that it diversifies your MLM
income, much like a mutual fund of stocks. Should one company suffer a significant drop in popularity (and
sales), abandon the MLM compensation model, or just close down, you won't lose your entire organization and
income. Everything remains intact in the other companies, and the portfolio managers then replace that
dropped company with another offering similar products. You never again have to worry about starting over.
Just build it once, one last time.
Sounds great, in theory. Reality, not so much. How would you know Len, you’ve never done it. Speaking from
the theoretical 10 year old arm chair no doubt. I have never "done" a Ponzi scheme, nor have I claimed my
product cures cancer – but I feel confident I can make a strong case that both won't work, and why.
I think I've made my point about non-responsive, condescending, sarcastic remarks. I will try not to respond to
them further (although I can't guarantee I'll be successful).
Let's first take a step back and look at this from a more macro point of view. I wrote an article back in
1998 called "Working Multiple MLM Programs: A Gross Fallacy of Logic"[6]. The article dealt mostly
with the overly simplistic concept that "multiple streams of income" in MLM could be achieved by
trying to build a downline in more than one company simultaneously, and this would multiply your
income from the same effort. (Thank goodness Monitium is not doing that) (so, when Monitium
claims within their corporate produced literature that, "If you're a $10,000 monthly residual earner,
then you'll at least quadruple yourself to a $40,000 monthly income if you build the same size team
within Monitium's platform and have positioned that team in just four outside MLM companies", what
were they referring to?) That is, if you can make $1,000 per month in one opportunity, you can make
$5,000 per month in five. Although portfolio schemes were only addressed peripherally, this article
still raised the same overriding question; How can you give 100% of you attention to more than one
thing? Quite easily when you know how. They say women can focus on more than one thing better
than men, but I have seen exceptions to the rule on that one as well. There are thousands of people
around the world RIGHT NOW building in 2-3 other companies. Want some lessons Len, I charge
$5,000/hour. It is mathematically impossible to divide up 100% into parts with any one part still being
100%, let alone more than one. To suggest otherwise is silly. For every second you're on the phone
talking to a prospect about Company A you're not talking to a prospect about Company's B, C and
D. But I've made my case against this "Gross Fallacy of Logic" in the article referenced above, and
will not repeat it here (it should be self-evident). I will only say that its difficult enough to get
someone to even focus on a single opportunity, let alone succeed in one, and for every exception
you can identify there are thousands that will counter it. Indeed, the idea that you can increase your
chances of success by trying to build in three or more opportunities at the same time is one of the
most common and primary reasons for this industry's high failure rate. How will defraying your
efforts, thus giving considerably less effort to building each opportunity, As I said, in Monitium you
don’t have to build more than one business, that’s what makes it so appealing, so your question is
irrelevant. somehow result in the same level of success in each one? Here's an excerpt: Quite the
opposite Len, you are giving your focus to one thing; building ONE genealogy. You are also not
building it in each company, only ONE, so it is highly focussed. Also, adding new companies is
simply adding NEW PRODUCTS to the genealogy volume. This hardly requires focus. Companies
add new products to their range every day without losing focus. Just goes to show, some people can
walk and chew gum at the same time. In fact most people who have home based businesses have a
job as well. In fact some are so talented they have another 2 to 3 jobs and they still manage to find
time to focus on their home based business. Let’s not confuse time and focus, they are two different
things! I’ll teach you how to focus Len as part of the deal. You are not arguing points I made in the
Monitium review. I clearly said in the "Gross Fallacy of Logic" article you can't do these things "at the
same time". No one works two or three jobs at the same time. Furthermore, I specifically and clearly
declared in my review that this section was only an introduction to the portfolio plan concept and not
all points may necessarily apply to Monitium, which is stated below, and which you acknowledge. So
why debate the point as if it did apply to Monitium anyway?
"Let's apply this same logic to other situations in our lives. Since there is always the threat of being laid off from
your job, or your employer going out of business, let's work three or four full time jobs all at the same time. Or
how about the high divorce rate? Over half of all marriages in this country now end in failure. Well, let's marry
five people. That way if one relationship fails, we've got the other four to hold the family together. What about
religion? There are dozens, if not hundreds, to choose from. Since there is (allegedly) only one true path to
God, let's put our faith in Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism, and all of the other major religions --
that way we're sure to be covered. Obviously, to do any of the things I've just described would be absurd...",
and greatly increase, if not assure, your chances of complete failure.
Of course these are all poor examples for making his point; hardly a demonstration of logic. Boy, this guy really
has LESS than a half glass full mentality. What about the marriages that do work? Len really has a thing about
if something doesn’t work for one person, then that automatically means it won’t work for everyone else. His
analysis has one major flaw. He totally ignores HUMAN ingenuity, skills, attributes and abilities and the fact that
humans actually do learn from the past and improve for the future. A lot went into landing on the moon and their
path was littered with failures. Imagine if Len was on the moon team, we would still be riding horses.
In college I was instructed in a debate class that "If you can't diminish the credibility of your opposition's point,
try to diminish the credibility of your opposition."
Were you in that class?
Len cites business examples that never worked 10 years ago and assumes that those outcomes will apply
equally into the future. We should all stay at home and stop trying out new things. Imagine if Vasco da Gama
and Captain Cook never set sail? Is Len suggesting that it is better putting all your eggs in one basket or one
company? Do we have to make a list of the litany of ONE company failures to make the point? In my opinion if
the idea is a good one, let’s take a look at how we can make it work rather than why in THEORY it should not. A
common theme of Len’s throughout this whole blog is to point out the bleeding obvious as if it was some insight
from a genius. In the Monitium program they call them FAQ’s because they are COMMONLY asked questions.
We are now on page 4 and I'm still trying to find an actual rebuttal argument to any specific point I made about
Monitium.
To be fair, Monitium does not suggest you actually try to build in each of the four companies currently in their
portfolio. So, you wasted a few pages trying to suggest they did. I think the comment you just responded to, and
the rest of this paragraph, and all of the following one, does exactly the opposite of that, but I'll leave that up to
the reader to decide. In fact, they specifically urge you not to. That is, don't worry about educating yourself on,
or promoting, any aspect of any of the member companies. Just focus on building one thing - Monitium.
Here's an excerpt from Monitium's own documentation: All looks good to me. "Have you considered how
difficult it is to pick a good MLM company? You might be unpleasantly surprised at just how hard it can be,
especially since there are over 4,500 MLM company's currently operating. With this in mind, how can a person
whose unfamiliar with the MLM industry possibly know which company to select?"
How about this idea: Become familiar with the MLM industry! Educate yourself about the business you are
attempting to make a living at. The high success rate in this profession is primarily due to its participants not
doing any sort of due-diligence, nor spending any significant amount of effort in educating themselves about the
MLM business model, and the specific opportunity they are trying to build within. And here we have an
organization that is denouncing this effort, and declaring it unnecessary. Monitium declares:
"The only way to increase your current MLM income is to increase the size of your team in any given company,
which takes a lot of effort."
This is absolutely not true. The only way to increase your income is to increase your organization's sales
volume! To do that requires learning about the value and benefits of your products or service, and the proper
way to present them. That's how success has been created in this profession for over 75 years. Ah, but not so
in Monitium.
I’m always wary of people who talk in ABSOLUTE terms, because it implies there is no other insight or
alternative. Actually, this is ONLY Len’s interpretation (and never forget that) of what he reads and putting his
own spin on it. Any thinking person would interpret a bigger team means more volume. Taking into account
Len’s quarter full glass mentality, we also know that a bigger team may not mean more volume and I am sure
we could rely on Len to drag out a few exceptions to the rule. Generally speaking though; a larger team means
more volume.
This was not my point at all, which you have obligatorily responded to out of context. The point, which I
elaborate on later, is that Monitium considers the products to be secondary, if not insignificant. This was just
one of several comments made by Monitium that reinforces my argument that Monitium's income opportunity is
based on recruitment, not the value of, or any genuine affinity towards, the products. But this will be covered in
more detail further on.
Len also assumes that the ONLY way to increase volume is to learn about the value and benefits of your
product and service, as this has how it has been for the last 75 years. I can assure everyone this is not the
ONLY way to increase volume. I made no such claim, or even remotely suggested that "learning about" one's
products is the "only" way to increase volume. You are now rebutting points I didn’t even make. In fact I can
show you how to increase volume WITHOUT knowing a single thing about the benefits of the product. (Again
he has this philosophy of assuming the LAST 75 years are a good indicator of the next 75 years). In today’s
world, there is so much information that we are bombarded with, it is actually impossible to know everything
about every product and service, except for a cursory knowledge of the features and benefits. The irony of it is,
is that Monitium has only 4 products at this stage (incorrect: there are 4 member companies and all of their
products are available to Monitium participants – all 21 of them), so in Monitium you have more chance than
most other MLM companies, who have anything between ten and hundreds of products, at becoming a product
expert (or learning their benefits) than other companies. Any well supported company will have experts in their
field, so that you and I DO NOT have to know everything about the products and services of every company. I
know of many people including myself who know very little about the products and services, but we have made
lots of money because we are good managers of businesses. Here is a definition of Management: “The
EFFECTIVE use of resources to achieve a predetermined outcome”. A good manager will point people to the
appropriate resources (specialists) who are the experts in product and service knowledge and THEY do the
educating on your behalf. How cool is that. This might give Len a clue on how to FOCUS on what is important.
It is Len’s type of teaching and advice that keeps people poor. It’s OLD SCHOOL in both philosophy and
execution.
The issue of product emphasis, and why it's important, will be covered in more detail below. Otherwise, I will not
indulge any more attempts to discredit me, personally, nor to debate issues and theories unrelated to the
specific points made in my Monitium review.
At university the first thing we learned in Business Economics was that the purpose of going into business is to
make a profit. Fortunately, we learned the theory and have been good PRACTITIONERS as well.
We DO NOT need to be the library, only the librarians. Do you think a Librarian knows all the books in a library?
Of course not! They know where to direct you though. In fact, I have seen businesses grow at a snail’s pace,
because people try to become the expert in the products and services. It kills momentum and is virtually
impossible to duplicate. The biggest culprits for this are the wellness companies. The slow and low income
earners focus on becoming quasi doctors and it takes them anytime between 6-12 months to become experts in
the products. How would you like to duplicate one person every 6-12 months? Have fun, I know where I would
put my focus!
"Your first major step in securing long-term financial success is to stop fixating on any one MLM company or
their products and start focusing on your business..." (emphasis mine)
"You'll never need to talk, or worry about who has the best compensation plan, vitamin, lotion, juice, weight loss
product, etc."
"You need to remember that you alone and not one particular MLM company must remain the focus here. You
are the real product that's being sold here, which is then followed by the MLM companies' product. Many new
MLM Home Based Entrepreneurs get this backwards and lose their own identity as a business owner because
they're too busy promoting a particular MLM company or product." (emphasis mine)
Here's what's most wrong with this approach. Lesson number 3 Len; the most successful people in the industry
have created a personal brand or a company/idea brand. The comment is correct. There is an Everest size
mountain of legal precedent, as well as a very definitive statement[7] from the FTC, that clearly describes the
motive for purchasing an MLM company's products as being the defining criteria that separates legitimate, legal
companies from illegal pyramid schemes.
This is real cute coming from the person who said Pre-Paid Legal was a pyramid when it first launched. How
wrong can one be? Here, I'll show you. I was in 8th grade when PrePaid Legal launched and can assure you I
was way more interested in studying Lisa Becker than I was them. However, when I wrote a review of PrePaid
Legal -- 29 years later -- I did question, among several other issues, the legality of their "training bonuses" and
the $10 per recruitment paid to a member of their senior management. Within 18 months after my report was
issues PrePaid Legal revised or discontinued both of these bonuses. Furthermore, I specifically declared within
the introduction of that review that I do not believe PrePaid Legal is an "illegal" scam" nor a "Ponzi Scheme",
and that "I would bet on PPL to win" the lawsuit that was waging against them at that time, which charged them
as being a "pyramid scheme". I do recognize the difference between an outright lie and an honest mistake. I will
assume your statement was the latter.
What was curiously missing from your ignorant response was a counter argument to my point.
There must be a genuine affinity for the products being purchased, that they are being purchased due to their
intrinsic value, and would have been purchased anyway even if there were no income opportunity attached. If,
however, the products are being purchased primarily as a means to qualify in the compensation plan, then even
a company with good products can still be deemed a pyramid scheme.[8]
I agree that this is what is supposed to be the case, but then most MLM’s would need to shut their doors
tomorrow, including Amway. There is of course something that Len has left out. The qualifications are usually;
“to be deemed as active”. Why would you pay commissions or even entertain people who are “inactive”. To
remain active often requires a certain volume and activity requirement and so it should be. Would your boss
employ you if you were inactive and not producing sales? Why would Len expect Monitium or anyone else for
that matter to be different? It is up to the member to get their volume from a mix of customers and other
business builders. Let’s not forget the members are consumers as well. Many people buy the product, before
doing the business. In many cases, people only come to know of the business once they have seen or
experienced a product.
This is completely non-responsive. As I stated in the review, and provided evidence of, Monitium specifically
informs their participants to "purchase" the required product to qualify, and to essentially ignore the products.
They're just there so reps have an excuse to exchange cash within the compensation plan.
So, what is the motive for purchasing the member company's products within Monitium? Easy Len, because
they are fantastic products. Remember Len, it’s the benefits of the product and intrinsic value to use YOUR
words. But you just, rather verbosely and repetitively, attempted to make the case that the value of the product
wasn't important, and there was no need to evaluate the products to see if they were "fantastic". I described
what the motive should be, and made a strong case as to why this is not the motive within Monitium. So, is that
you rebuttal? How can they even begin to make a case that their reps joined these companies and are buying
their products due to any sincere desire for them when the large majority (really, on whose authority is that Len
– Once again an incorrect assumption and certainly not factual) of them joined Monitium before they even knew
what products they were going to have to buy? Monitium pre-launched in August, 2010 and, allegedly, attracted
"thousands" of "founders" during this time. The first member company was added in January of 2010.
About 30 days later the other three companies were added. I wrote my review soon after those companies were
introduced. My claim is that the "large majority" of reps came in during the approximately five months before the
three new companies were added rather than in the few days thereafter. Regardless of the size of this group,
you have not answered the question. How can any of these reps claim they joined due to the value of the
products (because they were so "fantastic") when those products were not part of the portfolio when they
joined, nor do they have any choice in what products are added to the portfolio?
Again, Len is a bit short on his research. If he attended, or watched a Monitium presentation he would quickly
realise that the Monitium concept is shown first, which includes letting people know there are partner
companies. It is all in the SAME presentation. I have yet to see anyone join Monitium who hasn’t already asked
“who are the partner companies?” or been told “these are the partner companies”. In fact Monitium members
are so proud of the quality of the partner companies they can’t wait to tell people who they are. Not only does
Len assume the general population can’t focus, walk and chew gum, but he also assumes they lack the
intelligence to ask what the products are. And, he claims it is the large majority. I’m sure the large majority of
people who have joined Monitium would find Len’s opinion of them quite condescending, especially given that
some serious income earners from other MLM companies have joined Monitium. I'm sorry you missed the point
entirely, and perhaps I should have made it clearer in the review. Again, I was referring to all those who joined
Monitium before there were any member companies, and those who joined before 3 of the 4 members
companies were in place. Obviously, this large contingent of Monitium reps could not have been joining
because they though the products were so "fantastic". They joined because Monitium promised them a "new"
way to make money, and they knew that at some point there were some products they were going to have to
buy. That's a HUGE legal red flag, and one that most certainly does not apply to numerous MLM companies (in
fact, in many MLM companies their reps are fanatical about their products to a fault). Indeed, they didn't even
have a choice in what products were added to the portfolio. Nobody has a choice in what products are added to
a business in any MLM. Straw man's argument. You have a choice to join a company based on their existing
products. You have no such choice in Monitium. If you want to make money, you buy the products they give
you. You join because you like the business systems, the people and the products, but all of them
PREEXISTED you joining them. Not true, in many cases, as just described above. One thing I have found
refreshingly different with Monitium and their partner companies is that they are not arrogant and continuously
take feedback from the field and implement any changes to make the business better. This is refreshingly
different from the treatment delivered to the field in other MLM’s. The top level business builders will know what
I mean. And, for the record, Monitium does involve key leaders in the choice of product categories. What
percentage are "key leaders" of all Monitium participants. You're grasping at straws. In fact they source the
companies (product categories) for and behalf of the field. Quite refreshing and a very different attitude to what
many in the field have experienced in other organisations.
Not only were they told what products they must purchase (to qualify for income), Monitium categorically tells
there reps not to "fixate" or "worry about" the products. As "business owners", they say, the rest of us are "too
busy promoting (our) company or product." You mean, like Microsoft, Google, and Wal-Mart?
It would appear at this point your rebuttal to the issue of product importance and motive for purchasing, as it
relates to legality, has concluded. I made a case, based on verifiable, verbatim quotes and sourced
documentation, that Monitium explicitly declares the products to be unimportant, that participants are required
to meet their requisite monthly PV by "purchasing" it (sales to customers are not applied), and that a significant
faction of reps joined ("large majority" or otherwise) before they even knew what most of, or any, of the products
even were. I have further made a case, based on sourced facts, as to why this places Monitium in a legally
vulnerable position. You have not only offered no evidence to contradict any of this, you have offered no real
counter argument at all other than, to paraphrase, "your wrong!"
It gets worse. Really, something else you haven’t quite understood Len.
"Associates may activate their Monitium preferred business center positioning within Company genealogy in
one of the two following ways:
Enroll with a low cost initial purchase and activate a reoccurring autoship order, or; Enroll with Company's fast
Start Pack and activate monthly autoship."
Not sure of what the issue is, as this is standard across the industry. The choice is an individual one of whether
you choose a small or large pack or go or not go onto auto ship as a convenience. Each has its own benefits.
Remember Len, BENEFITS. We should all know the benefits of our products, so we can make the right
individual choice. I am going to disregard your flip-flopping argument related to the value of the products. If you
wish to change your position and now claim products are important and their features and benefits should be
learned and promoted, and thus agree with me and oppose Monitium on this point, that's certainly your call.
And you are most certainly in error in that Monitium's two enrollment requirements are "standard across the
industry". What is "standard across the industry" is to offer such Fast Start Packs and autoship as an option. It
is quite rare that either one is a requirement, likely due to the legal implications. An MLM rep's qualifications
must always, under any circumstance, provide for sales to non-participant customers to be applied to their
qualifying volume. A distributor should never be forced to purchase product out of their own pocket to meet
these qualifications. I'm not sure what the laws are in South Africa, Rory, but here this is common knowledge
for anyone with even a modicum of MLM experience. If you are "not sure of what the issue is", please reread
the two activation options above.
My friend has a standing online weekly order for fruit and veg. His fruiterer gave him the choice of 3 packs as
well. Different to 75 years ago I know, but at least some of the world has moved on. His fruiterer now rewards
him if he tells a friend to join the online ordering program. My, how times have changed! Who would have
thought an offline business would resort to online marketing. STOP HIM LEN BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!
Another aspect that is always considered in the legal evaluation of an MLM program is how a distributor's
periodic PV, or Personal Volume, requirement can be met. Sales to non-participant customers should always
be applied to this qualification and a rep should never have to meet this qualification by his or her own personal
purchases alone.
Agree. Then why are you "not sure of what the issue is" with Monitium's two activation options? That is why
Monitiums products have products with broad customer appeal that people would have purchased anyway due
their intrinsic value. Some people call it transfer spending and some people just buy, because they love the
product. This response is wholly irrelevant to the point I just made. Transfer buying products are great. Except
we were talking about the legal issue of requiring a rep to purchase their quota.
If the only way commissionable sales volume can be generated is by a distributor's own purchases, then, in
fact, you must recruit new distributors to make money.
Commissionable sales volume is from customers as well; shall we move on. Skip the next paragraph. It is not
from customers, according to Monitium. I will repeat Monitium's two, and only two, methods of activation, and
then yes, let's move on.
"Associates may activate their Monitium preferred business center positioning within Company genealogy in
one of the two following ways: Enroll with a low cost initial purchase and activate a reoccurring autoship order,
or; Enroll with Company's fast Start Pack and activate monthly autoship."
The ability to meet our quotas by sales to those outside the income opportunity is the very concrete that the wall
between legal MLM operations and illegal pyramids is built with. So, how can this occur if Monitium reps can
only activate their position in each company with their own purchases (Who says this is true Len; only your
incorrect opinion), and they must agree to be on autoship? Auto ships are voluntary. The benefit of auto ships is
convenience. Fruit and veggie convenience; saves you a trip to the shop. As far as volume from auto ships is
concerned, it can all come from customers or a mix of your own orders and customers. Many members buy
extra products as samples to promote their business and why not. Extra volume and more sales made through
product sampling. Sound good to me.
I've repeated the two, and only two, ways that "Associates may activate their Monitium preferred business
center positioning within Company genealogy". This is not my "opinion", this is a direct quote copied from
Monitium documentation. Yet, you keep directly contradicting them. Are you saying that Monitium is in error?
That is, they must agree to meet their ongoing monthly PV by personally buying the products needed? (Wrong
again Len) Every one of Monitium's member companies are essentially loading up on reps very likely making
only token purchases primarily to participate in the income opportunity.(Wrong again Len)
Again, "Your wrong" is not a rebuttal. Do you have any actual evidence to support your position? I've provided
mine, which you seem to have utterly ignored.
IT GETS BETTER! The reason why members only buy token amounts themselves, is because they buy what
they need. The rest goes to customers who enjoy the intrinsic value of an energy drink or a desk top and
browser (who can operate their daily lives without a browser? – maybe 75 years ago you could Len, but not
today) or cleaning products for home.
I'm happy that you have changed your position regarding the importance of the products, and of reselling them
to customers. Now if you can influence Monitium to adopt your position we will all be in universal agreement.
It get's even worse.(Oh no, what now?)
Monitium swears they are not an MLM company themselves. You pay $49.97 per month to Monitium (the first
month in free), you are placed into a 2-wide binary matrix within Monitium, and you are paid bonuses of several
hundred to several thousand dollars by Monitium, based primarily, and in some cases entirely, on the number of
other people you recruit into Monitium - but it's not an MLM company.
In the normal corporate world, including and mostly blue chip organisations, their income packages are made
up of different components; some of these components are COMMISSIONS (driven by product sales),
REWARDS (at the companies discretion and usually paid from a marketing budget for achieving some criteria
or demonstrating a desired skill or behaviour) and RECOGNITION (funded from a marketing budget, but usually
with little monetary value, like a trophy or certificate), BONUSES (usually for achieving Key Performance
Indicators based on sales and market share growth) and they can take the form of share options and/or cash.
There are many other components, but these are the basics.
What Monitium pays are REWARDS, not bonuses as stated by Len (it is easier to measure by way of a binary
as it mirrors the compensation structures of partner companies, so it is an operational and system
EFFICIENCY). Semantic game playing and diversions aside, you just contradicted yourself. In the paragraph
above you claim "REWARDS" are "at the companies (sic) discretion" and that "BONUSES" are " for achieving
Key Performance Indicators based on sales" and is paid in "cash". That's exactly what Monitium is doing. The
money is not paid from product sales as there are none. Exactly! It's based on the number of others recruited
and derived primarily from enrollment revenue. It comes from Monitium revenues across other areas, like
perhaps advertising revenue or co-op arrangements (what advertising revenue? And co-op arrangements
would also be revenue solely derived from, and requiring, the recruitment of new participants, which would
support my legal concern), which are all stock standard business arrangements. If you look at the value of the
Monitium REWARDS compared to what is on offer by the partner company’s COMMISSIONS you will notice
that they are not very big by comparison (Have you even read Monitium's promotions of their "Ignite The Fire"
contest and "Enroller Bonuses"?) That is because partner companies fund that revenue from product sales and
the partner companies pay BONUSES and COMMISSIONS as opposed to REWARDS. Hence, Monitium is
NOT an MLM, but a management, Systems and CRM service provider. Don’t confuse the structure (a binary)
as a way of measuring how to pay the rewards to those who achieve certain requirements, with it being an
MLM. Look at what the business DOES, not how it rewards its people.
If I convinced Citibank to change their remuneration payment system tomorrow to a binary, does this mean they
cease to be a bank and are now an MLM. Binaries and unilevels are simply a method of payment. It does not
define the business they are in.
If CitiBank started placing all their clients into that binary, then started paying them bonuses derived from their
monthly banking fees and based on how many other CitiBank clients they enrolled into the binary, then yes, I'd
say they are now an MLM. If they started charging them a monthly fee not for banking services but rather for
the right to be in the matrix and receive these recruitment based bonuses, then no I’d say they are not an MLM.
They'd be an illegal pyramid scheme. And the type of compensation plan used most certainly does define
whether or not a business in a "multilevel marketing" operation. Any compensation plan that pays more than
one level (you can make money from the sales of those you enroll) is legally defined as an MLM. This is not my
opinion. It is based on legal precedent, and is a position shared by virtually every competent MLM attorney in
the United States.
Let me give a familiar example in corporate. A Sales manager will get COMMISSION based on team sales. She
could also get a BONUS for achieving some extra criteria that is important to the company at the time, like
increasing market share by 5%. The company may decide to pay her a REWARD for outstanding customer
service achievements or leadership behaviours. Monitiums REWARD payments are largely for Leadership
behaviours and will no doubt be coupled with RECOGNITION by way of a certificate or trophy.
Monitium is therefore not an MLM company because it has no products (you are right – paying out to a
downline matrix of participants based on having met requiting quotas, with those payments not derived from the
sale of a product but rather from their entry fees, is not an MLM company. There's another word for it, but it's
not MLM), but uses the MLM payment structure to measure individual progress and reward people based on
that progress, such as a Rolex Watch, or some money towards car and house repayments. These amounts
would certainly not cover all the repayments, it is a nice little contribution and simply by its value, you would not
consider it a big BONUS, even if that terminology was used. I would say; IT GETS BETTER!!
So, what is Monitium. It is a management and business service provider with the best back office and CRM
system that I and most people who look at it have seen. Many MLM’s charge a separate fee for their back office
services and scale it on a user feature basis. In the open market you would pay in excess of $60+/month for a
CRM like Monitiums. So, $49 is good value and if you do some extra work, it GETS BETTER, you get
REWARDED (again) by having this fee waived. Sound like a generous company to me!
It sounds like exactly what I described. You pay $49.97 per month to Monitium, you are placed into a 2-wide
binary matrix within Monitium, and you are paid bonuses of several hundred to several thousand dollars by
Monitium, based primarily, and in some cases entirely, on the number of other people you recruit into Monitium.
For the last several paragraphs you have dodged and weaved all around the point, but have said nothing that
rebuts my argument that this does not make them a recruitment based income opportunity where multiple levels
of people are marketing. It is not my place to judge whether that makes them an MLM company or a pyramid
scheme, but they are most certainly, by any reasonable definition, one or the other.
For example, a "Level 3 Diplomat" can earn a $25,000 "Top Enroller" bonus by recruiting 25 people into
Monitium, having at least 5,000 members in their Monitium sponsorship tree, and be purchasing at least 100 BV
in product from six member companies (there are currently four). In their "Ignite the Fire" contest you earn
entries into what appears to be random drawing for $700 to $12,000 in bonuses. An entry is earned by
recruiting five new "free" members into Monitium who stick around long enough to pay the $49.97 monthly fee
their second month. Sounds like a good goal to shoot for. Imagine what your income would be from all those
companies PLUS Monitiums rewards. Awesome! My commentary was not related to how "awesome" the
income opportunity was. It was within the context of its legality.
Remember, the above two paragraphs describe cash going into Monitium, everyone being placed into a binary
matrix in Monitium, cash bonuses being paid out by Monitium, and all based primarily, if not entirely, on the
number of people recruiting into Monitium. If I could interject Len, didn’t you say earlier that income comes from
VOLUME, not the number of people. No, I did not. I said it comes from the "sales volume" of the "products".
There is no product here other than the entry fee into the income opportunity. The incomes do come from
volume and that sits within the PARTNER COMPANIES, not Monitium. Wrong again. I just clearly described
income being paid by Monitium, exclusively from participant payments into Monitium. Where Len has got it
wrong is in his underlying (incorrect) assumption that the “cash in” is all from recruiting. There is NO recruiting
fee. The $49 is for the use of Monitium’s CRM (call it a service fee if you want some terminology), which pulls
all the partner companies together at the back end in a Cloud Computing environment (another low cost
operating efficiency which did not exist 10 to 75 years ago). For those who are in the modern MLM world, you
would know that some companies charge a service fee for use of their back office and depending on the level
of functionality you choose, is what you will pay. That is true. The large majority of MLM companies charge
between $25 to $100 per year for this back office technology. Monitium charges almost $600.
There is a well known and universally accepted legal tenet that, within a legal MLM opportunity, the "last person
in" (no one new is recruited afterwards) should still have the ability to earn from every commission and bonus in
the plan. If any bonus cannot be paid to the "last person in" then it would inarguably dependent on recruitment
of new participants. That would create a legal vulnerability. Also, literally every competent MLM attorney will tell
you that downline overrides or bonuses should not be paid on (derived from) products or fees that only
participants in the income opportunity would purchase. Otherwise, this income could only occur by recruiting
new participants, not by retailing of the product or service to "non-participants" in the income opportunity. This
would include such things as enrollment fees, sales aids, distributor training, and most certainly marketing
websites and back office admin facilities. So, let me pose the challenge this way. If you were the last person to
join Monitium, and no new $49.95 payments came in after you, could you still earn "Ignite the Fire" and
"Enroller Bonuses"? Why would anyone other than a participant in the income opportunity purchase a $49.95
monthly membership in Monitium?
They're right. That describes something completely different, and it's not an MLM company.
The greatest flaw in the mathematics and logic that Monitium, and all past (can’t get out of the past, can you
Len?) portfolio schemes, are based on, and what has usually caused their eventual demise, is the premise that
each participant will activate their position in the next company once they've either made enough to, or
potentially can, cover the qualifying order in the next one. Here's an excerpt from Monitium's "How it Works"
document: Well so far Len’s logic and mathematics have not added up due to his incorrect assumptions.
Mathematically, no MLM company should work based on paper mathematical theory and “logic”. So indeed,
should no other corporate entity work based on paper mathematical theory and “logic”.
On paper if there are 6 billion people in the world and everyone joins an MLM company or becomes the
customer of any other corporate entity outside of MLM, then the last person joining the MLM would not make
money OR the last corporate entity to enter a product category would not make money, as everyone would
have that product in their possession already. Mathematically, on paper, it would be hard to dispute the logic of
that. It’s like saying that there are 6 billion people and when they all have a mobile/cell phone the next person
born will be the only market potential. This is in theory and also mathematically sound Len. One problem, we
don’t live on a piece of paper. The REAL world is different.
However, we do not live or conduct business on a theoretical piece of paper. In the REAL world there is such a
thing as competition, which stops that from happening. There are government and anti-competitive legislation
that prevents that from happening – ask Microsoft!
By the way Len, Microsoft just bought Skype today ($8 billion big ones – How would you like to be the founder
and shareholders of Skype today; the past certainly doesn’t equal the future). There you go; change Len, we
live in the present, things have moved on from all of your decade old quotes and examples.
I’m not going to comment on past portfolio schemes from 10 years ago, because I live in the present and I’m
preparing for the future. If the idea is good, like landing on the moon, then build a better rocket to get there. It’s
easy to sit in an armchair and criticize on incorrect assumptions.
All of that response is not even remotely related to the "flaw in the mathematics and logic" being employed by
Monitium that I am challenging in this section of my review. I never even indirectly suggested this flaw is related
to anything you just described. I also clearly said that this mathematics and logical flaw that applied to all past
portfolio programs also applies to Monitium.
"After your team has reached a size which would be profitable (average time frame from immediate to 4 weeks
depending on your commitment level), you insert your team structure into one or all of Monitium's outside MLM
Companies." Again, that is the theory and an explanation of the concept; reality will be different and that is why
we would not follow that strategy verbatim. It is an explanation of the concept, not an execution
recommendation.
Your floundering. I am not attempting to assume what Monitium is really trying to say, I am responding to what
they directly and specifically said. Within the context of "How it Works", they very clearly tell you to "insert your
team structure into one or all of Monitium's outside MLM Companies" and only "After your team has reached a
size which would be profitable." You can't simply change what they actually said to some theory about what you
think they really mean, then defend your imagined alternate reality.
Doesn't this assume that once you're position would be profitable, thus have reached the point where you would
move into the next company, everyone in your downline would have had to reach this point as well? (4 people
Len, that’s all it takes. If people are too lazy to do that I would not want to pay them anything anyway. For
goodness sake if they put in that performance at work they would get sacked) Len also assumes everyone is
the lowest common denominator in the building of his flawed arguments. You have completely missed the point.
Monitium says their system works by you moving to the next company when you are profitable, but you wouldn't
be profitable in the next company unless your downline – including all those who are not yet in profit – also
moved with you. The question I asked, which frankly I'm having a hard time believing you don’t really
understand, is why would your downline also move with you before they are in profit? If they all don't move over
with you, how are you in profit? Nobody’s moving Len, they are just consuming and selling an extra product.
The penny will drop eventually. Your making up new rules. We are debating what Monitium tells you to do. So
for this scenario to play out as they've described, the majority of your downline ( and teel us Len, why wouldn’t
the majority of the people want to have more products in their business. It’s another source of income. Most
people that I know go into business with the express purpose of making money. Even non-profits have to make
money (another non-sequitur that has noting to do with the point being debated). will also have to move over
and activate before they are in profit! Monitium goes on to declare:
"The Fast Start Bonus in each company will easily allow you and your team to recoup the enrollment cost, so
no real financial expense will be incurred upon enrolling in a new company. In short, you're in a positive cash
flow from each MLM company day one!" This is true, but most would take more than one day. Because you
have already built your team, even if it is just 4 people, you do not have to re-qualify in the next company
(presuming they have a criteria to have 4 people) as you have already done that. Monitium has cleverly
negotiated lower volume requirements and/or negotiated a free auto ship for introducing 4 people, so yes; you
can get profitable quite quickly. The phasing of the income will be different as new people will still be qualifying
in the first company.
At this point I should confess one of my biggest debating peeves. That is when my opponent pretends to not
understand my point so they can avoid offering a rebuttal to it. I've described the issue here so clearly, and the
mathematical and logical flaw of Monitium's statements, which I've quoted verbatim, is so glaringly obvious, that
I really am having a hard time believing, Rory, that you are really so completely misunderstanding it. But I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt and carry on…
So for you to have "no real financial expense" immediately "upon enrolling", that would require that these
presumed "4 people" have moved over to the new company with you and activated their position. So, once
again, aren't those four people under the same conditions? Aren't they, too, reading the same Monitium
documentation and expecting to move to the next company and have "no real financial expense" immediately
"upon enrolling"? So if they are not going to move until each of them have their four people, then how has your
activation expense been covered "upon enrolling"? If your four each do have their four, won't those 16 each
have to have their four before they move? And if those 16 don’t move, then your four don’t move. So, for those
16 to move and have "no real financial expense" immediately "upon enrolling", they must have four each, or 64
Monitium reps who are ready to move because they, too, will have "no real financial expense" immediately
"upon enrolling", meaning those 64 each have their four… I can keep going until this gets ridiculous. Or, am I
too late?
What Monitium describes obviously can't possibly work in the real world! So why do they tell you it will?
Many MLM’s will require 50-150 points to be considered active. Monitium has negotiated points as low as 30-50
points. This means you could distribute those points over 3 companies and on a complete team would triple
your income from the same investment, but as I said, this income would be phased and it would not happen all
at once (that is the tripling of the income). Also, it has been noted that you would start off with one company and
there are solid strategies that would help achieve that goal of multiplying your income with multiples of
companies. People are doing it ALREADY outside of Monitium, but they have to build THREE genealogies in
different companies, as opposed to ONE in Monitium. Monitium just adds product categories, which increases
VOLUME (with no extra effort) and increased volume, means increased income. The counter argument is that if
you put all that volume into one business you would make more money in that company. The reality is that
people don’t, simply because they cannot justify that many points in one product category and couldn’t
consume or sell that much themselves. This is another reason not to be in a business that occupies only one
product category like wellness only or energy drinks only or whatever only. All products go through a product
cycle and some product categories disappear altogether. Why would you put yourself at risk in one company
with one product category?
The above paragraph is simply a Monitium commercial and has no relevance to any point I made in my review.
Besides the blatant declaration, once again, that products are being purchased simply to qualify for income,
how does the math work here unless all those below you are moving with you, and placing this enrollment order
that spins off these Fast Start Bonuses? You tell us Len, you’re the one giving advice. Wow. I just described
what I introduced as the "greatest flaw in the mathematics and logic that Monitium is based on", and that's your
response? Rory, I have no clue how the math works here. That's my point! Why would those on the bottom
level of your group move and activate? The bottom level of a binary comprises 2 people Len, hardly the majority
that you describe earlier. Even when it multiplies out; each new person coming in only needs to have two to
qualify, so in fact this is another reason as to why people will take on more products sooner rather than later
and why the majority therefore will activate in other companies. We all understand none of this will happen at
once. It will be phased. The "top" level of a binary has "two" positions. The "bottom" of a binary, which
technically doesn’t all fall on a single level (downlines are more diamond shaped rather than pyramid) can
include dozens, hundreds, or thousands, depending on the size of your organization. Again, assuming you
sincerely did not understand what I was referring to, now that I've clarified it I'll ask the question again: Why
would those on the bottom level of your group (anyone who has not yet developed any downline themselves)
move and activate? And if they don't, because they would not be in profit yet, then why would those directly
above them activate? And if they don't active, why would those above them activate? Do you see the logical,
mathematical fallacy here? Your absolute worst case scenario is that you make a lot of money from one
company. Who cares? But, if the people in your business want to make more than you, at least they won’t run
off for the next “best” thing in town. They will stay within the Monitium family and participate in more companies
and make more money than you. At least they will remain within your business.
I am not describing a self-fabricated "worst case scenario". I described, and then challenged, Monitium's
scenario as to how Fast Start Bonuses would provide "no real financial expense" immediately "upon enrolling".
It simply cannot occur they way they have described it.
Monitium goes further to say:
"If you're a $10,000 monthly residual earner, then you'll at least quadruple yourself to a $40,000 monthly
income if you build the same size team within Monitium's platform and have positioned that team in just four
outside MLM companies". (emphasis mine) This relies on the same false logic. Above they said you would
move into the first, or next, company "after your team has reached a size which would be profitable", and that's
when "you insert your team structure into one or all of Monitium's outside MLM Companies". This 10k into 40k
scenario assumes that everyone has met this condition! How is that mathematically possible? For you to
quadruple your $10,000 monthly income, hundreds of people have to agree to buy products in all four of those
companies as well and quadruple their losses!
It appears you have concluded your response to what I described as the "greatest flaw in the mathematics and
logic that Monitium is based on" and have not offered a single remark that would defend Monitium's depictions
of how and when participants would move to each member company and how profits are derived from them
(and curiously chose not to respond at all to the last point).
There are several other challenges faced by purveyors of this portfolio concept. All covered already. What is
interesting is that none of the “insights” provided by Len are new or unusual. In fact we call them FAQ’s,
because they are COMMON QUESTIONS asked by the majority of people. WHERE LEN GOES WRONG IS
HE ASKS AND ANSWERS HIS OWN QUESTIONS BASED ON INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS.
No response is necessary here. Any reader can read my review and then read Monitium's FAQ section and see
that virtually none of my questions are even posed there, let alone answered.
Although Monitium does protect you from a member company going out of business, and does offer some
security in that they can move the entire structure into another company, this still begs the question, What if
something happens to Monitium? After all, something happened to every MLM portfolio management company
that's existed previous to Monitium. Living in the past again. "Living is the past again" is not a rebuttal to the fair
and reasonable question I posed.
Also, won't some of Monitium's people already be a part of the company Monitium is adding to their portfolio?
Then what? You tell us Len. Rory, when I pose questions like this that means I'm asking you to answer the
question. Not only is it against policy in the vast majority of companies to have a financial interest in more than
one distributorship within that company, it would likely be a violation of that company's fiduciary responsibility to
allow the Monitium rep to build another position in competition with their original position.[9] What about all
those existing reps in the new member company that like the Monitium program and want to join it? They would
have to be forbidden from doing so. EXACTLY Len, you are slowly getting there. That is ONE of the reasons
why Monitium was birthed in the first place, because the field is sick and tired of companies dictating to us what
we can and cannot do due to their limitations and onerous INCOME LIMITING conditions put on members. In
the Monitium system it is a win-win as it should be.
Again you have completely misunderstood my point, or pretended to. I'm not going to indulge this type of
diversion any further. I'm confidence any intelligent reader understands the challenge I just posed, and that you
have not responded to it.
For the record, since my review was written I have confirmed that members of Monitium who are already
involved in a newly added company are, in fact, forbidden from acquiring a new position within the Monitium
downline, and those distributors in the newly added company who later choose to join Monitium are, in fact,
forbidden from rejoining that member company within the Monitium structure.
It is not a zero sum game. Just because a person makes money in three businesses, does not mean the first
two miss out. It means they all get exposed to bigger databases of customers and if they want their share of the
action they need to keep themselves relevant, offer good service to members and customers and have world
class CRM’s like what Monitium offers. Professional home based business people are no longer going to
tolerate the sub-standard service and draconian contracts (yes Len, that are still in existence 75 years later)
from MLM companies. The industry is tired of it and we are doing something about it.
Another commercial unrelated to any point within my review.
This also presents just one of several challenge to Monitium's claim that, "Monitium's group of industry experts
know what to look for and carefully screen all potential outside MLM companies to ensure that our Associates
have the best possible MLM companies to select from" (emphasis mine). It would be extremely challenging for
the largest, most successful companies to be a part of the Monitium portfolio. Right on Len, they would not
make Monitiums criteria and we don’t want 75 year old mind-set companies ruining our portfolio. I am
challenging their claim that they screen "all outside MLM companies" to ensure their Associates have "the best
possible MLM companies to select from". Wouldn’t the "largest most successful companies" be good
candidates for being among "the best" companies? If not, how did they get to be the largest most successful
companies? Once again you've contradicted Monitium and supported my position. What if, hypothetically,
Monitium were to grow to 100,000 members? Would companies live MonaVie, XanGo, Shaklee, Amway,
Herbalife, Vemma, Usana, Pre-Paid Legal, Nu Skin, Tahitian Noni, Melaleuca or any of the strongest, most
stable companies really be a viable candidate? Depends on their level of arrogance and ability to change. This
is a good question to put to all of the top performers who have left all of these companies and now have a
serious eye on joining Monitium. Just to update the uninformed. The back office of Mona Vie shows thumb nail
pictures of all the members in the genealogy. The blank photos (and false names) are top level leaders from
other companies including all of those mentioned above.
You've veered completely away from the point. The above comment was still within the context of the challenge
created by the restriction against having more than one position in a member company (nothing more). As
described in my next paragraph below (in black text), if Monitium reaches 100,000 members, this distributor
overlap with the largest MLM companies would surely preclude them from consideration as a member
company.
Again, you will notice all of the companies (with the exception of Amway) are single product category players;
they are in wellness, juice etc. For most of them more than 70% of their income comes from one product
category and Mona Vie and co, pretty much 100% of turnover from one product category. Now that the juices
have done their dash and gone through the inevitable product cycle, what’s next? After 3-5 years of hard work,
where is your income coming from? I’ll tell you where; the next “best thing” to hit town or your inbox.
This has nothing to do with any point I made in my review. However, not only are two of the four member
companies not "single product category players" (SoZoLife and Exfuze), unless you want to go so far as to call
"beverages" a "single product category", but I know that there are companies which are not, by any definition,
"single product category" companies that are not part of Monitium's portfolio because they were invited to be
and declined.
Monitium has recognised all these flaws and de-risked the business to the extent that they can by offering this
business model in a MODERN NEW WORLD. The big leaders know this is the answer and already there are a
lot of blank faces (from other companies) in Monitium’s genealogy and guess what?; Monitium encourages
them to earn incomes from more than one company. This is what we have been waiting for!!!
Non-responsive commercial.
Imagine the hundreds, or potentially thousands, of conflicts-of-interests this would create by all those Monitium
reps that were already in any of those companies. This likely offers at least one possible explanation as to why
their current four member companies are young, small companies. Len, you need to PARTICIPATE in the
industry, not theorise and live in the past. The hundred’s and potentially thousands of conflicts have been going
on for YEARS now. Where have you been all this time?
I am, of course, still referring to the conflicts that "would be created by all those Monitium reps that were already
in any of those companies" that are added to the portfolio. Nothing else. Your response to my posing of this
challenge was, "You tell us Len."
But this is only a minor reason as to why Monitium cannot be screening "all" potential companies. The first cut
would be all those which do not offer a binary pay plan. Imagine trying to apply Monitium's 2-by matrix
structure[10] to a unilevel pay plan[11]. Yes, imagine it, but guess what?; it is possible and not as difficult as
landing on the moon. But yes, it is challenging and yes it can be done. Imagine that! In the next paragraph I
describe why this would be a challenge. Let's see how you respond to it there.
They would either have to deconstruct the organization and restructure it based on the sponsorship tree (thus
many of those who are downline partners in one company will now be cross line competitors in the unilevel), or
they keep the 2-by binary structure intact in the unilevel and shove potentially huge amounts of sales volume
out of the pay range of the plan. So eliminate XanGo, Shaklee, Amway, Herbalife, Pre-Paid Legal, Nu Skin, and
Melaleuca from the above list right there (not that any of these companies would ever agree to be part of
Monitium's portfolio, but more on this point in a moment). So eliminate roughly two-thirds of "all" potential
companies from consideration. No response as to exactly how this challenge would be overcome. So, we're left
with your rebuttal that it is "not as difficult as landing on the moon" but "is possible". Well, of course it's possible
– if you want to suffer the extreme challenges I just described above. What about all those that offer products
that are redundant to what their initial four companies are already offering? They've already got a Jungle Juice,
energy drink, coffee, and home care products, as well as computer training. Even binary programs like
MonaVie, Zrii, Agel, Vemma, and many others would now make no sense as a member company. Quite an
accurate assessment, so what do you think will happen next Len. I will let you guess, because it’s not that hard
to work out. What the heck? There will be more Monitiums created. Ever heard of Groupon? See if you can join
the dots. How is this in any way a rebuttal to my assertion that the above companies with overlapping products
would be excluded from consideration, thus negating Monitium's claim that they consider "all" potential
companies. Currently two of their four member companies offer an energy drink and juice product. How many
"exotic functional beverages" can you consume each month? Exactly Len, that is why eXfuze has saved
everyone the trouble and created a juice using ALL the berries and fruits used by the other companies and said
“heck just buy the eXfuze juice and you have them all in one bottle”.
Non-responsive commercial.
Monitium also touts "transfer buying" products as a priority (as a priority, really? I don’t think so Len, that is your
addition) (here is one of several comments collected from the Monitium website and press releases: "The
concept and vision has been launched and with even more companies coming on board that represent transfer
spending, Monitium is the force to be reckoned with in the direct sales network marketing industry in 2011 and
beyond."), meaning those that you are already purchasing on a regular basis. They already seem to be
struggling to meet this criteria. Coffee and cleaning products fit, and maybe an energy drink. I'm not sure a $30
bottle of fruit juice applies, and certainly not online computer training.(online computer training; you need to do
some more research Len; I think you will find Smart Media Technologies is WAY beyond computer training how very misleading) (the point has to do with whether or not it applies to "transfer buying"). So this also
eliminates niche market companies with unique or sporadically purchased products such as Amega, Send Out
Cards, Numis Network, Nikken, and practically all travel companies. The key word being SPORADIC. I am still
making a case for why Monitium cannot possibly be considering "all", or even more than 10%, of all MLM
companies.
So we're already looking at a potential field of companies that would likely comprise a single digit percentage of
"all" potential companies. And this is not even considering all those companies that would never even consider
Monitium's conditions for entry into their portfolio. Here are just a few highlights: Once again, Len is working
under the assumption that Monitium wants all the companies on his list. For a start some of them have
compensation plans that are 50 years old and after breakage are effectively only paying out 32% Go figure!
Every reason that Len has given for not doing Monitium or why Monitium won’t work are the precise reasons
why it has a very high potential of working. WE (the business builders) DON”T WANT ANY OF THE OLD
STYLE COMPANIES; WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THEM!!
We want our future to be DIFFERENT to our past Len. Why would we bring OLD SCHOOL thinking and
companies into a vibrant modern business that de-risks most of the issues the field has had over the last 50
years and which you seem to want to hold onto so desperately. Can you please give us just ONE modern
example?
You have, once again, completely misunderstood the point (or deliberately attempted to divert attention from it).
I have not in any way suggested Monitium "wants" all MLM companies. They claim, and I accept, that they
review companies and reject those that do not meet their criteria. This entire section is designed to refute
Monitium's claim that they are considering all, or even more than 10% of all, companies as potential members.
Member companies must agree to: Good!
1) Waive all enrollment fees (this will cost their current member companies from $25 to $39 per distributor);
2) Waive monthly website fee (typically $9 to $19);
3) Waive their annual renewal fee (Monitium has their own annual $50 fee);
4) Permit Monitium members to join other MLM programs. Their agreement states:
"Company unconditionally and irrevocably waives any and all non-compete provisions contained within their
policies that conflict with this section...";
5) Waive any structured time frame restrictions or qualification period for attaining leadership ranks just for
Monitium's associates (for those companies where this applies it will likely require reprogramming of their pay
plan, or its ongoing manual manipulation); 6) Make an IT manager available to Monitium 24/7;
7) Not pursue any compliance action against any Monitium Associate without first supplying written notification
to Monitium. The company agrees to first discuss with and secure the prior written approval of Monitium before
taking any disciplinary measures against the associate. If in Monitium's opinion the evidence presented does
not establish wrong doing, or if the wrong doing is established but Monitium believes the level of requested
discipline to be unreasonable, the company agrees to only discipline the associate at the level agreed to by
Monitium;
Also, if the company changes any aspect of its compensation plan that "in any manner takes away benefits, or
income from its distributors, Monitium at its sole discretion has the right to discontinue referring Monitium
associates to Company". What about shifting the plan's weighting? For example, adjusting the plan to pay the
fewer top earners slightly less in lieu of the larger number of lower ranking reps earning more? Or visa versa?
What about reducing the payout to allow for lower product prices, or to adjust for higher product costs? Or, what
about dialing the payout down a tick to help a company remain profitable? Under these conditions a company
making prudent and necessary adjustments to their financial structure run the risk of being cut off by Monitium,
thus exacerbating the very condition they are trying to correct.
What strong, stable company would ever allow themselves to be neutered like this? Unfortunately (for these
companies), Len is probably correct on this point. They are so set in their ways and want the dice loaded in
their favour that they probably would see it as being ‘neutered’ They prefer a win-lose model and no business
will survive long-term (into the future) with that type of culture. The baby Boomers are sick of it and Gen X&Y
certainly won’t put up with it.
Why do you think all the companies mentioned by Len cannot attract the youth of today despite attempts to add
product categories that may attract them. I’ll tell you why; it is 75 YEARS OF OLD ENTRENCHED THINKING
AND CLINGING TO THE STATUS QUO AS LONG AS THEY CAN. Monitium offers a win-win model. Their
trading criteria is good for all parties; the partner companies are certainly not being ‘neutered’, but getting
access to customers that they would never of had before.
Non-responsive proselytizing.
How desperate does a company have to be to give up this much control? For some, they won’t give up control,
which is why they will eventually go out of business. It will be forced upon them OR they will lose their members
anyway. Check out what is happening in the broader world. Look at Libya, Egypt and the Middle East. These
communities are tired of their dictators, they are sick of the SYSTEMIC WIN-LOSE CULTURE. The old MLM
companies won’t have to tell their pre-existing members anything, because they won’t be there to tell. They will
be in Monitium having fun and BUILDING BUSINESS OPENLY IN MORE THAN ONE COMPANY WITHOUT
HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT BEING KICKED OUT OR HAVE THEIR INCOME TAKEN AWAY. Nonresponsive proselytizing. How does a company enforce one set of rules for their preexisting, perhaps most loyal
founding distributors, but then tell them that all these new folks coming in from this portfolio deal are operating
under different rules? They don't have to pay for their distributor kits, their back office, their website, or their
renewal fees. Only they can't be terminated or sanctioned without Monitium's approval, for perhaps the identical
infraction a preexisting rep can be? Preexisting reps are not allowed to promote another MLM opportunity with
like products, but those that came in from Monitium can?
It's interesting that in the above paragraph I specifically define the challenges a member company would face
by agreeing to Monitium's restrictions. Yet, in spite of your somewhat prolific attempt to rebut my review, you
chose to ignore this point and offer no response to it at all.
Monitium has their own "Terms & Conditions" which cite various forms of violations, but curiously offer no
guidance at all as to what the repercussions are for such violations. Maybe Monitium simply has a culture of
encouragement and not punishment. Maybe their “repercussions” focus on lack of honesty and integrity, as
opposed to breaking stifling one-sided contracts. Maybe. But I'm more interested in facts than assumption or
speculation. And I'm still left to wonder, what happens when a Monitium rep violates Monitium's "Terms &
Conditions"? If they are punished, or can even be terminated, how is this any different than any other MLM
company? If not, that is, if these are only unenforced suggestions which they "encourage" you to follow, then
they are not "Terms & Conditions" that must be agreed to before joining. But, they are.
The first company to join the Monitium portfolio was WOWGreen[12]. They offer a nice line of green household
cleaning products. The other three companies were all added within the last 30 days. So what? Is this out of
sync with Len’s plan for Monitium? It was simply a statement of fact. There's SoZo Life[13],
Within this outlined section Rory appears to have accidently cut and pasted text from my review that was
already covered on pages 13 and 14. Yet, he's chosen to offer new and additional responses to the points
made. He either admits to the challenge (but they're "working on it"), suggests members will use deception to
get around the challenge (not sure how that actually addresses the challenge itself), while at the same time
asserts that I am "incorrect" because these challenges "do not exist".
There are several other challenges faced by purveyors of this portfolio concept. Len keeps mentioning the
challenges, most of which are not real, because the underlying assumptions that create his perceived
“challenges” are incorrect and therefore either does not exist or Monitium has found solutions to them.
Show us a business that doesn’t have challenges and I will guarantee you it is not a business and secondly, it
certainly will not be part of this planet or have human beings working in it. Even having robots will have its own
set of challenges.
Although Monitium does protect you from a member company going out of business, and does offer some
security in that they can move the entire structure into another company, this still begs the question, What if
something happens to Monitium? No need to beg any longer Len, we will find another company with a World
Class CRM. After all, something happened to every MLM portfolio management company that's existed
previous to Monitium. After all what?
Also, won't some of Monitium's people already be a part of the company Monitium is adding to their portfolio?
Then what? Not sure Len, we are still working our way through this challenge, but I’m sure as a group, a
solution will be found. Here is a simple solution, make sure you join Monitium first so this problem does not
arise in the first place, as for existing members I’m sure with some human intervention a solution can be found.
It may not be perfect, but hey we don’t live in black and white, but rather a shade of grey.
Not only is it against policy in the vast majority of companies to have a financial interest in more than one
distributorship within that company, it would likely be a violation of that company's fiduciary responsibility to
allow the Monitium rep to build another position in competition with their original position.[9] What about all
those existing reps in the new member company that like the Monitium program and want to join it? They would
have to be forbidden from doing so. As I said Len, just where have you been for the last 75 years? We know it
is against policy in the vast majority of companies, but that doesn’t mean people are slavishly following it. The
vast majority have positions in multiple companies despite your research indicating the contrary. You don’t
seriously think that people are going to answer a survey (even an anonymous one) and say they are part of
another two or three companies.
The first company to join the Monitium portfolio was WOWGreen[12]. They offer a nice line of green household
cleaning products. The other three companies were all added within the last 30 days. There's SoZo Life[13],
which launched in 2009 but is actually somewhat of a reincarnation of Integris Global, which opened back in
1996. SoZo Global, LLC acquired Integris in October of 2010. SoZo offers a Coffeeberry based juice product,
an energy drink, and a coffee product. Next is ExFuze[14], which also offers a juice product (Mangosteen, Goji,
Noni, Acai) and an energy drink. Finally there's Smart Media[15] which offers computer education. Besides their
binary comp plans, all four have one other thing in common. They all promote up front bonuses that are openly
described as recruitment based, and derived from the initial purchases of the newly enrolled rep. So they fit
perfectly with Monitium's product deemphasized recruit-and purchase philosophy. Covered this inaccuracy
already.
After a cursory review of each member company I came away with an overall positive impression of each one.
SoZo was very responsive to my questions regarding Integris, which was a company I have long been a fan of.
WOWGreen appears to have a cool line of current and relative products that are the most applicable to transfer
buying, and ExFuze was added to the Honorable Mention list under Best Companies of 2010 over at
MLMInsider.com by my suggestion. Having once owned and operated a computer training facility I have a
unique appreciation for companies like Smart Media. In fact, I'm surprised any of these companies chose to be
involved in Monitium. Maybe they see something you don’t Len; and for the record SMT is not a computer
training facility although that is one SMALL component of the desktop. Maybe it was 75 years ago, but it gone
somewhat beyond that now. Maybe.
I contacted the senior management of five MLM companies (now six) and asked if they had been contacted by
Monitium. One said no, two said they had never heard of Monitium, and the other two (now three) - one a
smaller up and comer and the other (two) a very substantial, well known company - said they had been solicited
to join, and declined. One (both) specifically cited the overbearing membership terms as the reason. Aha, one
of the OLD SCHOOL MLM’s who prefer the win-lose model. That might explain why the new modern MLM’s
and home based businesses are attracted to Monitium, because they do not need to be dictatorial to grow.
They are aware that entrepreneurs tend to be a democratic bunch of people looking for a fair go. These partner
companies are confident in their ability to deliver and don’t need to put in onerous criteria to protect their own
ineptitude. These companies will see their association with Monitium as a badge of honour and a signal to the
rest in the market place that they can perform on their own merits. You must have misread the paragraph. I said
these were companies "contacted by Monitium". I'll expound: Contacted by Monitium to become a member
company.
Monitium's use of internet technology is exceptional. Their website is top-notch, and one of the most esthetically
pleasing I've seen. They make great use of audio and video in their presentation, and the abundance of
information leaves little to the imagination. As I eluded to in the title of this review, Monitium's packaging is
brilliant. There is certainly a level of sophistication, and funding, here that exceeds any offered by their many
predecessors. Having said that, if your wealth creation vehicle has a four cylinder engine with one spark plug
missing, it's unlikely to take you where you wish to go no matter how gorgeous the body style or advanced the
electronics. As I said, Len is getting the concept slowly, that is why Monitiums business model is built on
multiple cylinders, in case one doesn’t perform to standard. Completely irrelevant to the point, which is: The
enhanced technology does not solve the problems.
Or, the experience and expertise of the driver - and Monitium has no shortage of accomplished, competent
helmsmen. Which makes the development of Monitium all the more mysterious.
Monitium was founded by its CEO Ken Eggleston. Ken has a somewhat controversial past in the field of law
enforcement, which ended several years ago and has little barring on Monitium. If it has little bearing then why
bring it up. Must be scraping the bottom of the barrel Len! Monitium must really be threatening to Len. Maybe it
flies in the face of all he has been teaching in the MLM products he sells and now someone is about to rewrite
the books, which will make his training products redundant. 75 years of work down the drain. I'll ignore the adhominem attack on my ethics and say only this: If my intent was as Rory describes, why didn’t I elaborate on
Mr. Eggleston's past? However, his MLM career can best be labeled - ironic. He claims to have been a "Million
Dollar Industry Earner" and the "#1 income earner" in both Advocare and WorldVentures. However, he
accomplished this by focusing entirely on Advocare (late 90s to early 00s), and then WorldVentures after that.
In other words, if you were to follow the advice he gave back then, which was to find a successful mentor and
follow their lead, you would do exactly what Monitium is now telling you not to do - find one company you're
passionate about, educate yourself about their products, and focus your building efforts on that one opportunity.
Len, this demonstrates Ken’s ability to adapt and change in a rapidly changing world. What might have had
some validity back then may no longer be applicable today. Ken probably learned some lessons and decided to
develop something so the rest of us would not have to go through what he and others did. At one stage people
believed the world was flat, but most have changed their view on that one (with maybe one exception) and are
teaching that the world is round. This would be a valid argument if not for the overwhelming body of evidence
that suggests finding "one company you're passionate about, educate yourself about their products, and focus
your building efforts on that one opportunity" is still the most effective, most predominant strategy for success
within this profession – and trying to build several MLM programs at the same time is still a devastatingly bad
strategy.
Ken sure has a “controversial” past; he changed what he said 10 years ago to what he is saying now. Big deal!
I’m personally glad he has moved with the times. I’m sure that when the first people who pronounced the world
to be round, were probably considered to be controversial at the time, but they got it right. The absurd
hyperbole you keep applying to your analogies aside, your argument might also have merit if using this "one
company focus" strategy caused Mr. Eggleston's failure in Advocare and WorldVentures. Yet, both of these
companies are still in existence to this day, and he achieved great success using this strategy. So, why
abandon it?
Mr. Eggleston has operated the "500K Success Team" in recent years which appears to be an MLM portfolio of
sorts, but unlike Monitium, participants are not expected to join more than one company. Here members appear
to have focused on one primary opportunity, but should that one not meet the interests of their prospect there
are others to offer as a back up. So, it's more like an MLM opportunity store, where the prospect can choose
the company and products "that most fits their individual areas of interest." Actually, this concept is much more
viable. In fact, often times throughout my own career I've focused exclusively on one primary opportunity, but
had a position in one or two non-competing programs that I liked. Then, if a prospect locked in a "No" to my
primary opportunity I still had a Plan-B. I'd rather they join my secondary or tertiary opportunity than none at all.
But I never tried to get them into all three. Len, you are slowly getting there. The preference you have described
as being your preferred model is exactly what Monitium has on offer. If it is, then it is being grossly
misrepresented by Monitium, because that's not at all what they are describing. Your challenge is that you
continue to look at partner companies as “other companies” and “other opportunities”. They are simply other
PRODUCT CATEGORIES. Each product category is non-competing and offers more doors (attracts more
people) into Monitium and therefore MONITIUM MEMBERS DO NOT NEED A PRIMARY OPPORTUNITY OR
PLAN B, C OR D. All product categories are in one place. There is no need for a plan B. YOU HAVE JUST
CONFIRMED THE VALIDITY OF MONITIUM’S MODEL, except you have been doing it the hard way by trying
to build three opportunities. Now you've got me confused. Didn’t you just say my "Plan B" model is "exactly
what Monitium has on offer"?
And, if they wanted all three, and if the products had intrinsic value like you said they should have, then why
wouldn’t they take ALL three of your opportunities. You robbed them of two other sources of income based on
your set of beliefs of what they may or may not want. I am not discussing "ifs" and "shoulds". I'm commenting
on, and offering an evaluation of, what is.
You have also just answered one of your earlier questions based on an incorrect assumption, namely, that
Monitium could not attract partner companies, because partner companies would be concerned that points (and
hence volume) would be distributed across multiples of companies instead of being focused in one.
You've mangled two completely disparate points into one. I never made any such point as you've just
described.
For the first time in this whole assessment you have actually described what happens in the real world. You
could not accommodate all your prospects in your PRIMARY opportunity, so rather than lose the points
(volume) you stuck them in your plan-B and/or plan-C business. Partner companies understand that they can’t
accommodate everyone, but what they do understand is that MLM leaders are good at cross-selling and they
will benefit from the plan-B and plan-C people RATHER THAN LOSING OUT ALTOGETHER. Can you see how
one is win-lose and the other win-win? Partner companies are getting members and customers OUTSIDE OF
THEIR NORMAL TARGET MARKET.
You're responding to a point I never made, and again using a response to my review as an opportunity to pitch
your Monitium business.
Boy, if Len made money doing that, then he would make a fortune in Monitium. Somebody get this guy’s
number and sign him up.
Please don't try to do that.
Monitium also showcases an "Advisory Board" with "over 300 years of combined experience", and the line up is
impressive. Which makes the following claims all the more bewildering:
"Whether you realize it or not, current MLM industry polling confirms that more than 65% of network marketers
are actively participating in up to Three MLM companies at the same time... (this trend) is expected to increase
to over 90% by 2012".[16] I'm assuming they are not deliberately playing semantic games here by citing the
percentage who are "actively participating" in "up to three", which, if taken literally, would include one. The point
clearly being made here is that 65% are actively trying to build a sales organization in more than one
opportunity (otherwise, this number could be the result of 64% pursuing one, and 1% in two or three). This is
simply not true. You are right Len, this is not true. Firstly, key leaders are not exactly going to divulge their
participation in other companies in a poll (not even an anonymous one) and secondly, the figure I would say is
even higher than 65%. In fact, 100% of the top income earners I know are involved in at least 2-3 opportunities.
My extensive, formal, survey, of over 7,400 respondents, and meta-analysis of several other prominent industry
surveys, trumps your informal memory of the "top earners" you know personally.
I have done my own meta-analysis of such trends and not only is the percentage remarkably smaller, the trend
is strongly moving in exactly the opposite direction And how can all these experts, which all this knowledge and
experience, make statements like this:
"You may still think you actually own your MLM business, but think again, your most valuable asset is controlled
by the ownership of your MLM company" [Isn't your most valuable asset now controlled by Monitium?]. No Len,
they administer and manage our asset. They do not control it, we do. There is a difference between
management and control. I see. So you control what companies are added to the portfolio? You control the
monthly fee? You control the qualifications and payouts of the "Ignite The Fire" contest and "Enroller Bonuses"?
You control Monitium's "Terms & Condition"? You control the covenants and restrictions within their Member
Company Agreement? You control the design and features of the website and back office? You control the
Monitium member database?
"At any point, because of their policies and procedures you signed, access to your most valuable asset can be
taken away from you with no prior notice. Hard to believe? Shouldn’t be hard to believe Len, they have been
taking it away from top earners for years. Those days are coming to an end. Remember North Africa. Today,
not 75 years ago! It shouldn't be, especially since it happens far too often. Is this fair or right? Of course not, but
the independent distributor has had no choice They have a NEW CHOICE in Monitium now! but to play by the
MLM companies one-sided rule book... (which) they can suspend or terminate if desired...".
This is nothing more than a scare tactic designed to induce paranoia among otherwise loyal, committed
distributors to motivate them to leave their heartless company and allow Monitium to protect them. Ken
Eggleston himself asserts that "Good owners" are "rare", and that "there's been a lot of carnage in the
industry."[22] The fact is, wrongful terminations are extremely rare. Really, tell that to the people who have been
terminated. I'm sure they would disagree. However, I am telling this to the 99.99% who have not been
terminated. We (no we don’t Len, please stop bringing us into the royal “WE”. What you mean is “YOU”, not
“we”. tend to think they are more common because when one occurs, or has even been alleged to have
occurred, it makes news. Again, you have me confused (except, I really am!). So, are you saying I should not
include you, or anyone else, among those who believe wrongful terminations are "common"? Reread my
comment again. I think you might have misinterpreted it. Bloggers debate it, message board chatter heats up,
and industry advocates send out Alerts to their subscribers about it. MLM has created the worlds largest,
fastest, but not always most accurate (tell me about it Len), ready-made grapevine. Occasionally we hear about
mass terminations where a company abandons the MLM compensation model, such as Metabolife or Xelr8,
which is big news. But even this ugly event occurs, on average, about once every 5-10 years. So let's keep this
in perspective. There are roughly 9.5 million individual, active, distributors in this country (the DSA's 16.1 million
refers to total distributorships), and we might see half-a-dozen individual terminations a year that are even
arguably unjustified. If you actually investigate the termination, and get both sides of the story, you'll discover
that the large majority of terminations where the rep claimed they were wronged (and, of course they will) were
actually quite rightful terminations. What is rightful Len. When you have draconian contracts, what is “rightful”. Is
it “rightful” to limit a person’s income? This is akin to a crazy non-compete clause and I can’t wait for the first
class action to fight this. It is long overdue. No, what you just described would not be "rightful". It would,
however, be an irrelevant rant that distracts from the point. Rightful suggests the distributor did something so
egregiously harmful, or potentially harmful, that they deserved to be terminated. And even among those
terminations it is rare that no warning is given as Monitium suggests. MLM companies are loath to evict
distributors, especially their more popular, successful leaders. They tend to go to great lengths to avoid the
public backlash, not to mention the defections and subsequent sales volume hit, that usually accompanies the
expulsion of such high profile personalities. So, no, there is no wrongful termination pandemic. Do wrongful
terminations occur "far too often"? Of course. If it happens once, that's far too often.
My opinions, analysis and prognosis when it comes to MLM portfolio/umbrella programs in general, and
specifically Monitium, are shared by several other experienced industry experts I've spoken to recently. (Really,
name them, I would love to have a discussion with them). It would be journalistically irresponsible to reveal such
private conversations. But here's one of the several I spoke to that has also went public: MLM attorney Kevin
Thompson. One I haven't spoken to is ANMP[23] and MLMWatchdog.com[24] founder and consultant Rod
Cook. However, Rod's extensive commentary on portfolio/umbrella programs is still readily available online.
Here are some examples:
"THE MLM WATCHDOG SPEAKS ABOUT (MLM) DOWLINE BUILDING SCHEMES
I started writing about these over 10 years ago" [note: Rod wrote this about ten years ago]. Don’t worry we have
noted that extensively throughout. Any recent material Len? You've missed the point of this comment. MLM
portfolio schemes have a 100% failure rate for more than twenty years. "These folks sometimes (but rarely) are
actually good guys trying to build a triple hitter deal where they steer you into 3 or more different deals. To this
date all Umbrella or Portfolio companies have failed. Why? I’m sure you will tell us.
I'm curious, Rory. How many failures, over how many years, does it take for all this historical precedent to mean
anything to you? Attempts to make a portfolio/umbrella system work go back to at least the mid-1980s, and
have been tried dozens of times. You're analogies don't apply here. It didn't take 25 years and dozens of
attempts to get to the moon. We made a few successful practice runs over three years, then nailed it on our first
try. It didn’t take 25 years and dozens of attempts to prove the Earth is round. It took about three months and
one attempt. However, healers once tried to cure disease by bloodletting. After centuries of failure they
eventually stopped doing it. Based on your logic we should not have given up so easily and tried to find a better
way of curing disease by bloodletting. Time absolutely does tell.
"Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it" – George Santayana
1. They cut deals with loser companies that put them at the top of the downline. Companies fail! I’m sure Smart
Media Technologies, eXfuze and WOW would like to know that they are loser companies. Len was singing their
praises earlier on. You seem to be unable to follow the continuity of the text. I am quoting Rod's previous
commentary on portfolio programs here, not my current commentary on Monitium's member companies. This is
what Rod says has happened in portfolio programs over the past 20 years. 2. New people have trouble enough
learning 1 company much less 3. 10? Forget it! Once again Len displays his lack of understanding of how to
build a business and how Monitium works. As I said earlier, be the librarian not the library. You DO NOT have
to learn 10 companies. As I pointed out earlier they are 10 PRODUCT CATEGORIES, not companies. What on
earth is there to learn about coffee when that is added on?. What is there to learn about adding a new cleaning
product? Len, we can walk and chew gum. Please don’t judge everyone’s capability based on your own.
Everyone adds on products and people funnily enough can handle it because it increases their income. Again,
you lost track of who's commentary you are responding to. You're disagreement is with Mr. Cook here.
3. The portfolio people can't aford (sic) good enough software to track people in 3 or more companies."[25]
Monitium can and is! I agree this has been resolved in Monitium, but disagree that this was a primary or
common cause for past portfolio failures.
"PORTFOLIO - UMBRELLA CLUBS REARING UGLY HEADS AGAIN These are old dead never-win MLM
ideas. The idea is that you will join a company that will put you in multiple MLMs and you will make money out
of each one. Careful planning allows money to flow for all! Yuk - Yuk! Fat Chance! Run!"[26] May be an old
idea, but new from the point of view that is actually happening now. Old and dead seems to be Len’s theme. 75
years in the making. It happening NOW Len as we speak. Then please explain how Rod's warning to run away
from "a company that will put you in multiple MLMs and you will make money out of each one" is different in
Monitium?
"MLM PORTFOLIO OR MLM UMBRELLA FAILURES
I have a hard editorial opinion on these downline builder dogs (So we’re all dogs as well now. Good one Len,
don’t hold back) (Again, I am quoting Rod Cook's opinion of "MLM portfolio" and "umbrella" programs. At the
beginning of this section I stated "Rod's extensive commentary on portfolio/umbrella programs is still readily
available online. Here are some examples…". You apparently missed that line.) after watching 20 years of
failures" Any successes you’ve seen since then Len? No. [Note: Rod made this comment 9 years ago]. NOTED
LEN, 9 YEARS AGO!! WOW. "There is a 4-5 year memory cycle on these dogs that allows these old failures to
keep 're-inventing' themselves. Joining multiple MLMs (1-5) as a portfolio or umbrella sounds good in theory,
but not in practice. Here are some facts (what facts, they have been a bit thin on the ground so far, because of
wrong assumptions. Change the assumptions and you have a new set of facts) (these are Rod's "facts", not
mine) about these Dead on Arrival deals:
1. MLM Portfolio or Umbrella companies are confusing downline (confusing YOU Len, go easy on the “royal
we”, as WE GET IT. No confusion at all) (these are Rod's comments, not mine) building clubs (what clubs, is
there something we don’t know about) to benefit the guys at the top. Some have been honest failures. You
mean good old fashioned incompetence is ok. Some included friends of mine that I violently warned. Others are
purely deceptive scams started by plotters who know that being at the top of the downline in each company will
benefit them.
I think I've established that your erroneous belief that you are responding to comments made by me, rather than
Rod Cook, has been established. The is no need to keep pointing this out from here on.
2. Little guys at middle-bottom can't work or build 1 MLM much less 2 to five. The overflow or spill promised....
that the downline builders brought them in with, mathematically can't work. Speak for yourself Len. You still
don’t get it and I thought you were making progress. You build ONE MLM and then add PRODUCT
CATEGORIES. YOUR primary and Plan-B and Plan-C is hard work and your experience no doubt based on
that.
And, who are these “little guys”. I have never come across such a condescending and arrogant attitude in all my
life. Len assumes, based on his own limited belief system, his wrong underlying assumptions, his lack of
understanding of how Monitium ACTUALLY works, living in the past (10-75 years of old knowledge which has
been superseded 100 fold since then), his assumption that everyone but him are idiots and his mathematical
genius and logic, which don’t apply in the real world leave me amazed. To think that some people have
commented in their blogs that they will not waste time doing their own due diligence because Len has already
done it, leaves me staggered. That lazy approach could literally cost them millions … and all because of ONE
person’s OPINION. How Sad!
Perhaps this is because I presented commentary based on irrefutable facts, reason, logic, and mathematics,
and I sourced and referenced my material. I also based my position on historical precedent, which seems to be
a valuable and accurate resource to the vast majority of the human population, as it has been for centuries. But
I do understand that your opinion differs.
What interests me is that at the end of this article there is a plug for MLM Web Secrets. Monitium gives this
knowledge away for FREE. They are actually not secrets. Maybe Monitium will put him out of business because
we give it away and he has some other motive. Interesting! When you get this product I wonder what is behind
the “fly trap”. Rory, you have blundered yet again. The end of my Monitium Review contains no advertising or
"plugs" for anything. You are reading my review that was reprinted (with permission) on Ty Tribble's "MLM Blog"
website. It's odd that you did not understand this as it is clearly defined as his blog, and he succinctly identifies
the review as "from Len Clements MarketWave Alert" 3. At the end of about 8-14 months the guys at the bottom
leave and the "window shade effect" disintegration starts. Level by level faster and faster.
For the record, the title of my Monitium review is "Monitium Portfolio Program Review: An Old, Failed Concept
in a Beautifully Wrapped Package". The title was changed (without my knowledge) to "Monitium: A Scam Or
Just A Bad Idea?" by Mr. Tribble.
4. Losers complain to the law and the law goes after the Umbrella company. If it is a club (a trick pulled to try to
get away from registering with states) regulators then fall upon the owners! Well you tell us Len, is it a club or
not? You incorrectly labelled other companies pyramid schemes, which were not.
5. Guys at the top (founders)? They make out sometimes, but most have ended up flat broke and disappeared
out of the MLM Industry with 1000's of angry voices chasing them. Watch out for Len then because he is also a
founder and CEO as you will find out later. Mmmm, hidden motive perhaps. The Watchdog's opinion is to "run"
when these "NEW" innovations get rolling full steam! Stay out of their way!"[27] On that basis we should have
all NOT invested in Google, You Tube, Skype and Facebook. These new innovations are really no good at all.
Right Len! Tell that to the Founder of Facebook and all the people who he helped to become millionaires. Tell
that to the founder and shareholders of Skype who just sold out to Microsoft for $8 billion. Thank goodness they
never read your blogs.
"Marketing groups that try to do several MLM companies as 'Portfolios or Umbrella' marketing companies have
a dismal past."[28] We know Len, 75 years ago. The Wright brothers had a dismal past until they got it right. By
the way Len, we fly in planes now and have landed on the moon. They are shooting for Mars now believe it or
not. Guess what Len?; they will have challenges and a string of failures along the way, but through human
persistence they will prevail. All of your assessments totally ignores the capacity and ability of the “little guys” to
innovate and overcome “challenges”.
"Umbrella MLM: Is an MLM company formed to sell multiple MLM - Network Marketing Companies their
products, services & compensation pay plans. The theory is not all of them will fail and they will generate
multiple streams of income. Your editor has seen a 100 or more come and go and a success rate of zero." (pay
special attention in the footnoted document to the second and third from last comment by Rod in red, and the
black text immediately following those comments).[29] Old 9 years ago Rod is back again. For the record you
are neither our Editor nor Advisor, so please self-appoint yourself elsewhere.
Here is the text in the footnoted document I referred to in the above paragraph HERE. This is a legal case (Erik
E. SCHRADER v.STATE of Maryland) involving a portfolio scheme called C.I. Systems (CIS), which built
downlines in five member companies, and had previously been ruled an illegal pyramid scheme. Mr. Schrader,
who founded CIS, was appealing his conviction. The gist of the complaint against CIS was that no participants
were buying the products to resell but rather as a token act to meet their qualifications to get paid, that the focus
of CIS was on recruiting new members into CIS, and the aggressive earnings claims (as are also found within
Monitium promotions). As the investigative officer testified: "…recruitment was emphasized as the focus of the
operation; selling and the product line were incidental. To the extent products were involved, participants in the
programs were generally buyers rather than sellers." Sound familiar? Although an FBI agent who specialized in
pyramid schemes testified that four of the five companies that made up the CIS portfolio were, in his opinion,
illegal pyramid schemes unto themselves (only Yurika Foods was the exception), CIS would still be a pyramid
operation because it was "using those companies to facilitate the down liner system or programs."
Mr. Schrader's appeal failed and the original ruling upheld because, according to the judge, "…participants
were told they did not have to concern themselves with selling anything; rather, they could earn money by
recruiting others into the operation. In the opinion of the State's expert witness, the appellant's operation was
one primarily for recruiting people into the pyramid and not for selling products. According to the expert, the
individual programs promoted by CIS, even if separate business entities, were used by CIS 'to facilitate the
down liner system or programs.' We conclude that there was ample evidence to support the finding of the trial
judge that the appellant was guilty of conspiring to violate Article 27, s 233D." That is, CIS was an illegal
pyramid scheme.
Rod Cook commented within the text of this ruling, "I treasure this case because it is step by step clear how an
Umbrella MLM Company created an illegal Network Marketing compensation plan that affected even a good
company." He then defines "Umbrella MLM" as a "company formed to sell multiple MLM – Network Marketing
Companies their products, services & compensation pay plans. The theory is not all of them will fail and they
will generate multiple streams of income. Your editor has seen a 100 (sic) or more come and go and a success
rate of zero." I agree with Rod that this is a great case study.
"And there have been some really good people try doing umbrella companies. Go see Ed. Note: Score of 100
Umbrella Companies Started in the last 10 years = O survivors!"[30] We must be due for success soon then.
And for the record, Rod Cook is absolutely right. I completely agree with him. Same vintage, same attitude. I bet
both are divorced as well. It’s statistical and mathematically true. I can't respond to this comment because I
have no idea what it means.
Rory, from all of your responses over the past two pages you seem to have a great deal of passionate
disagreement with Rod Cook as well. Remember, these were his descriptions of the portfolio programs that he
was warning his readers against. No where did you make any attempt to explain how what Monitium is doing is
different that what Rod describes.
So... Let the flaming begin.
I only ask that if you do decide to call or write, please don't just call me names or accuse me of not getting my
facts straight. Now why would we do that Len? YOU SHOULD HAVE PUT THAT AS A DISCLAIMER RIGHT
UP FRONT IN BIG BOLD LETTERS FOR ALL TO SEE. Specifically explain exactly what I got wrong. Not my
opinions - I get to have those. But what did I cite as a matter of fact that was verifiably inaccurate? All of the
above Len, but please don’t contact us because we have a business to build. ONE business Len, with multiple
PRODUCT CATEGORIES, I will be more than happy to correct those errors, or to make clarifications where
necessary. No need, I have done it on your behalf! I completely disagree. But I'm fine with leaving that to the
judgment of the reader.
MLM is a 75 year-old industry, folks. We know Len and what happened 75 years ago is sure to happen in the
next 75 years, because you said so and Rod said so. Everything has been tried. Apparantly not, Len. Cloud
Computing is only kicking into gear NOW. Clouds are the things the planes fly in Len. Everything you see today
is just a variation of what's already been done over and over. It’s called evolution Len. When Monitum succeeds
it appears it will be a revolution, just like what is happening in North Africa and the Middle East. We “little guys”
do get fed up with a win-lose model, especially the 75 year old ones.
I've tried to ignore your absurdly exaggerated analogies, Rory, but sometimes they are just inappropriate. I
really think the profoundly world changing events going on in North Africa and the Middle East, and the
freedoms and security those people are fighting for are not even remotely analogous to what Monitium claims to
be protecting MLM distributors from – assume this profession even really needed such protections. No one's
ever died from a cut to their compensation plan.
We have three-quarters of a century (75 years to be mathematically precise and logical Len) (three quarters of
100 is 75, Rory) of precedent to look back on to see what works, and what doesn't work. Portfolio schemes are
one of the oldest, most tried concepts in MLM history.
History doesn't lie. Oh yes it does Len, ALL THE TIME! I'll let the absurdity of that claim to stand on it's own.
Past: Old plane with cloth wings (an old concept, “man wanting to fly”) Today: Jet planes breaking the sound
barrier – History shows we seem to be able to improve on old concepts and ideas until they work. Past: Candle
Today: light bulbs. Do I need to go on? No, because these analogies are not even vaguely relevant. They do
not describe doing the same thing that completely didn’t work, but somehow doing what didn’t work enough
times to where it finally worked. Nor does the graveyard full of dead portfolio deals. One big difference Len is
that the successful in this world LEARN from the past, but LIVE in the future. You should try it Len, you might
enjoy the ride. These plane thingies get you around the joint pretty quickly and the ones that go to the moon are
even faster. There is a weird guy (one of the “little guys”) called Richard Branson who wants to fly us other “little
guys” to the moon and orbit the Earth (the round one, not the flat one).
This has NEVER been done before with commercial flights, not even in 75 years, but this weirdo has even
booked his family on the first flight. (You had better tell him Len that it can’t be done, stop him now). These guys
who are founders of companies and put themselves at the top and become billionaires are real pains in the ass
aren’t they Len. Some of them are dyslexic and can’t even spell ‘precedent’, let alone believe in it. They view
precedents as something to break and go beyond. They are FUTURE focused. If it works so well, if there are so
many advantages to doing it this way, then why isn't everyone doing it? Dunno Len, the Wright brothers first
plane worked well … it could fly, but the “little guys” thought it could be better, so they have been improving
them ever since for some reason. When the Wright Brothers were trying to fly, because they saw many
advantages for doing it, not everyone else was doing it; funny that! This is a nonsense analogy. The Wright
brothers made many attempts to create a flying machine and failed. Then, they stopped doing what didn’t
worked and succeeded by doing something different. You have utterly failed to identify even a single thing that
caused portfolio programs to fail in the past that Monitium is doing differently. Instead, you have only identified
aspect of Monitium that are different (such as the advanced internet technology and training) that has nothing to
do with overcoming the flaws of past portfolios. As I've described, those flaws still exist. All their advanced
technology will do is attract more people to a failed, still flawed concept.
In fact, pursuing multiple MLM programs simultaneously is a concept that is almost (almost, so there is hope)
universally discredited by the most successful MLM veterans (the key word being “VETERANS” with selfinterest for the status quo) (the key word being "Veterans" who have the experience and knowledge to know
what works and what doesn’t work in MLM) working today. It is almost universally accepted that the size of a
Bumble Bees wings should not keep it in flight, but these little suckers just keep on flying. It’s really frustrating
Len, because it defies all logic and precedents. That is, the ones whose methods you'd think would make the
most sense to duplicate. Frustrating, isn’t it! If you make a list of the top 100 most enduringly successful MLM
distributors of all time (not the one hit wonders), you will find they have one, and only one, thing in common.
They all applied a laser beam focus on building one downline, in a company they loved, with products they were
proud of, and they committed to it for several years. That’s why Monitium focuses on building ONE downline;
you’re back on track Len, slow, but you’re getting there. Now you have to be deliberately twisting my words.
You could not possibly have misunderstood what I just said that badly. And, just to put the record straight Len,
the enduring top earners are in more than one business, they just haven’t bothered to tell you, because they
don’t want it to be in your next week’s blog. History (really got a thing about the past haven’t you Len) has also
told us what doesn't work, (that’s why we’ve changed it Len) and I don't understand (we know Len it is hard to
understand) why so many of us don't pay attention to it. Actually Len, WE do pay attention and that is why we
make changes, we improve, we take advantage of technological advances which often leap us FORWARD
virtually overnight and obliterate the last 75 years in a single day. It's standing right behind us, and it projects
well. We know Len, the past 75 year’s projects accurately into the future … Not!
Len Clements
Founder & CEO
MarketWave, Inc.
(Founder and CEO – Len’s at the top and making all the money; watch out little guys we are being ripped – this
never used to happen 75 years ago) Another blunder. MarketWave is not an MLM company. Did you really
spend all this time and effort responding to my review without even spending a second to find out anything
about it's author?
Well what should we take away from this.
· Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that does not mean to say it is true. · A blog is a blog. It is not
necessarily true because you read it on the internet, especially when you don’t really understand that person’s
real motive behind the comments. Maybe, just maybe, they have another business they are trying to steer you
towards? But, wouldn't this require my having made some kind of attempt, even indirectly, to steer you towards
another business? And you might have known what my "motives" were if you, like the subscribers to my email
Alerts, had even the slightest clue who I am and what I do. You are so ill-informed that you didn't even
understand that the "blog" you read my article on wasn't mine!
· Don’t live in the past. Learn from the past, but live in the present and the future. If you keep looking in your
rear view mirror it will not be long before you crash. Have a vision for your life and go for it. A vision forces you
to look forwards. If you are standing still, you are actually going backwards, because the rest of the world has
not stopped going forwards. So, imagine how fast you are going backwards when you are living in the past and
still believing in, and even worse, teaching old paradigms. Learning from the past is all I'm asking anyone to do.
I have no problem with people who want to live in the past, but I do have a problem with them dragging others
there. You will notice that FEAR is their main weapon and that is the only thing espoused throughout this whole
article – FEAR! There was no attempt to list the challenge and then say how Monitium has gone about fixing
that challenge. Because Monitium has not fixed those challenged. That was the premise of my review. And your
"fear" comment is ironic considering the fear tactics used by Monitium to scare people into believing they need
the protections offered by Monitium.
There was no attempt to list the challenge and then maybe offer a solution. If people are going to put
themselves out there as a “guru”, then I expect them to come up with solutions. Anyone can state the problem
(we have enough of them around), it takes a different breed to generate potential solutions. I prefer the latter. ·
Do your own due diligence. Go to the leaders in the organisation and YOU ask the questions. Don’t rely on
someone else’s assessment, which as you can see in this case is flawed throughout. If the underlying
assumption is incorrect, then you can ignore whatever is written after that. Make sure you understand the
assumption on which the argument is based.
Here are my suggested solutions: If it is logically, mathematically impossible for everyone to immediately have
their activation costs covered when they join a new company, or that you're income will be $40,000 if you and
your downline join four companies if you're currently making $10,000 in one, then stop saying that! If paying
people you are placing into a multilevel structured downline, from their enrollment fees, based entirely on the
number of people they enroll (they even call it an "enrollers" bonus!), creates a huge legal vulnerability, then
stop doing that! If you claim you are considering "all" MLM companies as potential members of your portfolio,
and you're really only considering a small fraction of all MLM companies, then stop doing that! If telling your
reps that they don't have to sell products, or even consider them, and that the focus is on "building a team", is
the very essence of what state and federal regulators look for when evaluating whether or not an operation is
an illegal pyramid scheme, then stop doing that! Do I really need to go on?
· Also look at the tone of the article, it tells you a lot about the person writing it. This writer comes across as
condescending and arrogant (“little people” – there is a saying that says; “out of the mouth comes the
overflowing of the heart”). "Little guys" was a term used by Monitium's consultant and advocate Rod Cook. I
have not used this or any similar term. Furthermore, he clearly was not using the term in a demeaning way, but
simply to describe those who have not yet achieved success – as it has been commonly used in every day
conversations for generations. Speaking of which you will note the tone of my responses. You will note I have
little time for people like this, not because of what they say as an individual so much, but because of what they
rob others of in the process, especially when they use words like “factual” when they are not and when the
argument is built on sand to begin with and especially when what they are quoting is 10 years old. So is this
how you rationalization your extremely condescending, arrogant, sarcastic, and immature manner of
responding to my review? If you want to see what a professional, dignified response looks like, please see the
one presented by Giovanni Esposito. And I'm always amused when someone declares they have "little time" to
respond to something I've written – within a response that is longer than what I wrote.
· I think to some extent we all worry about the future and the pace of change in the world, but we do need to
embrace it and change with it as best you can. At the end of the day Monitium is going to be a threat to many,
and there will be all sorts of negatives hitting the market, especially from other MLM companies. This is the
single biggest threat to the status quo and they have absolutely no vested interest in it seeing it working.
Unfortunately it is too late now. The model is proving to be hugely successful in other businesses such as
Groupon. Groupon does not bear even the slightest similarity to Monitium's MLM portfolio model. Monitium has
taken some of the elements of this and you will see it in their business model. The genie is out of the bottle and
as much as people try it is not going back in. Imagine the terror of the telecommunications industry when Skype
and VOIP applications came on the market. They have not gone away, but just got bigger and bigger. Skype
was bought today by Microsoft for $8 billion.
Monitium and others that follow (and they will) are not going away. This is the shake up the industry requires.
Be glad that you are part of the early stages of this trend. Monitium has first mover advantage and by the time
others try to copy Monitium, they will have moved to the next level.
Monitium does not have "first mover advantage". Many MLM portfolio programs have existed already.
YOUR choice!
And finally, we agree!
[1] http://www.marketwaveinc.com/RadioShow.asp
[2] Except for the portfolio founders who place themselves at the top of all the individual company
organizations, as does occur within Monitium.
[3] Secure Independence (1986-1995).
[4] Currently operating.
[5] Not 100% certain of the name.
[6] http://www.marketwaveinc.com/viewarticle.asp?id=18
[7] http://www.marketwaveinc.com/FTC_Letter.pdf
[8] Jewelway and Equinox are great examples.
[9] I served as an expert witness in just such a case where the company allowed this to occur, and the company
lost.
[10] Limits the number of positions on the first level to two.
[11] Allows, and financially incentivizes, unlimited first level width.
[12] http://www.wowgreen.net
[13] http://www.sozolife.com
[14] http://www.exfuze.com
[15] http://www.smartmediadesktop.com
[16] "Experienced in MLM" document.
[17] To participate in, and view the results of, the current survey, go to
http://www.marketwaveinc.com/mlmdatasurveyusercheck.asp.
[18] Seven percent claimed to be "active" in one or more companies only to buy their products.
[19] Back then the question included those who were only product purchasers.
[20] http://nmbj.com
[21] So not only would the husband being in one and the wife in another count as two here, but if someone
joined ABC, Inc. in January, quit building it in March to join XYZ, Inc., but left their ABC distributorship open and
occasionally buy products from them, they would be "currently in" two companies based on the wording of this
survey question. [22] Comment section under the blog entry at http://www.themlmattorney.com/monitium-doestheir-model-work/ [23] http://www.theanmp.com/anmp
[24] http://www.mlmwatchdog.com
[25] http://www.mlmwatchdog.com/report_mlmspy.html
[26] http://www.mlmwatchdog.com/Archives2004_3.html
[27] http://www.mlmwatchdog.com/RC_Scam_DownlineBuilder.html
[28] http://www.mlmwatchdog.com/report_libertymanagementgroup.html
[29] http://www.rodcook.net/mlm_pay_plan_legal_trouble.html
[30] http://www.mlmwatchdog.com/archives2002_1.html