Content of the Results Approach Training:

Use of Arbonne's Results Approach creates ethical issues that are not present in the One-on-One and Group Presentations. What are these ethical issues? I will outline them by taking information directly from Results Approach Trainings. The Basics of the Training:

  1. “You sign up and commit to a $2,500 order each month.”
  2. “You think of four others who would do the same.”
  3. ad infinitum
  4. After you get the Kits “You figure out a way to move them.”(The information in quotations is taken verbatim from the training.)

First, notice that both #1 and #2 above are “potential” not actual. At the time of purchase your volume is all potential except for the portion that is for personal use. In addition to that the list “you are to think of” is potential as well. Do you know for sure that those you think of will actually do the business with a $2,500 commitment? No good business person would take a financial risk until they knew the rate of risk to return.

Ethical Dilemma of the Results Approach:

There is a way around this ethical dilemma. Before the new Consultant commits she could ask those who she thinks might want to start the business if they also will commit to $2,500. But this does not take the risk out of the system it only transfers it down the food chain to someone else. And if you wait for this Consultant that is sponsored direct to you to contact those she thinks would be business builders, would you not ethically also need to allow those Consultants she is sponsoring to do the same. For this ethic to hold this would have to continue ad infinitum down the food chain. So at some point this process has to end so the deal can be struck and when it does those who are at the bottom of this food chain reside in "potential" not "actual" volume and thus are at risk. And let’s not make the ethical quantitative washout argument. Although there is a difference in the risk per person where you could have one person unable to move $2,500 in Results Kits, or two people unable to move $1,250, or five people $500, or ten people $250. In the network overall there is still a total of $2,500 in false volume for which the up-line will be compensated before they make anyone successful. So even if one attempts to explain this away by reasoning that there is only $250 of risk for each down-line Consultant the up-line Consultant still got paid on $2,500 of unconverted potential consumable volume or failure volume in her downline. Thus total ethical load for the up-line Consultant is still remains at $2,500.

The Only Fix for the Ethical Dilemma:

Knowing the failure rate of 50 to 80% in the Results Approach System and that this means there is always a percentage of the Kits that are not converted from potential to actual consumable volume, the only truly ethical way to do the Results Approach System is to offer to buy back the Results Kits that are not moved as is stated on the DSA Website. But if this ethic is applied at the start up presentation with new Consultants, how many would sign up to do the Results Approach? After all they would be exposed not only for their $2,500 but also for the kits of anyone else they bring in? If they bring in four consultants as the training recommends, that is a total of $12,500 in total exposure if the Kits don’t move! Not many would bite on this offer because the risk is too high. Consequently, this ethic is withheld in the Results Approach Trainings and glossed over with the words, “You will figure out a way”.

Ethical Fix with Arbonne's 45 Day Money Back Guarantee is Unethical:

When we have presented these ethical issues to some who do the Results Approach they respond by saying, "O, we solved that problem. There is a 45 Day Money Back Guarantee so if they don't move the Kits by that time they just return them and there is no risk." But this is not purpose of Arbonne's 45 Day Money Back Guarantee. It was designed to protect the customer in those situations where they for whatever reason do not or cannot use the product. It was not designed to be used as a business investment safety valve. And to use it this way may appear to resolve the ethical dilemma of new Consultant risk, but it adds another ethical dilemma of equal or even more severe stature.

Upline Benefits Come From Downline Risk:

Now if we can build the business via the Group Presentation System without the up front risk to the new Consultant, why then this system with risk? Very simply this reason; the up-line Consultant gets paid on the potential volume immediately at no risk to them while the down-line Consultant holds all the risk. Now those who support this system will say, “I have risk. I also placed a $2,500 order.” Yes, but your risk is minimal because you have a network under you that will compensate you and thus absorbs that financial risk. The new Consultant who is just starting out is totally exposed with no current revenue from Arbonne to pay for this $2,500 in inventory. They either have to bring others into the network under the same $2,500 of risk or they have to move the Kits and convert them to actual consumable volume. Another defense is, “But there is always a risk to building a business.” That’s true but this type of risk violates the network market approach where a Consultant can build a business with little investment and financial risk. It should be a Consultant’s own time and effort that determines her success, not how many people in her network are at risk. Another response is, “I reduce the risk because I do fact finding and only take those who have the potential to do the business.” If a Consultant is so good at fact finding that they can eliminate the failure rate in the system by selecting only those who will be successful, then they should be willing to wait for the Consultant to build the business without the risk of the up front inventory. If they are that good at fact finding and they know you will eventually be successful why would they insist on the $2,500 each month? – Because they get paid on that volume immediately even though it is all potential and not actual at that time. So this system is more about the up-line’s pocket book than it is about the success and dreams of the new Consultant. This is not the Arbonne culture. All posts regarding the Arbonne Results Approach Analysis © copyright 2009 VoiceWind & Greg Loveless

© 2009 – 2014, VoiceWind. . .Greg Loveless. All rights reserved.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

© 2008-2018 VoiceWind All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright