Monthly Archives: May 2011

Canteen Faith

Posted by on May 17, 2011 No comments

As Hagar journeys through the desert she runs out of water. She places her son under a bush and then walks away so she does not have to watch him die. (Genesis 2:15-19)

By her actions it is obvious that Hagar’s faith in God’s protection went as far as the water in her canteen. The moment the water ran out, so did Hagar’s faith. So at this point she does the next logical step — she prepares for death. Her faith exhausted, this is the only future she can see.

But as she sits there in the desert God opens her eyes and she sees a well of water. Did this well just suddenly appear? No. It was there all the time but she could not see it. She can see the bush to lay her son under where he will die. She can see a place for her to sit down so she will not have to watch her son die. But she can not see the well that is present the entire time.

There are times in our lives when the water in our canteen runs out and with this our faith. At these moments we would argue with God that He is not present. But God is present. We do not see him because our faith is misplaced. With faith in the water in the canteen, when the water runs out, so does our faith. But this does not prove God is not present. It proves our faith was in the water and not in the Living God.

When we place our faith in the material our vision is limited to this material. When this material runs out so does our faith. And when faith runs out it will threaten to kill us and those around us.

May we have the vision to take our eyes off the water in the canteen, we hold in our hand, that is limited, so we can see the water in the well, beyond our grasp, that is unlimited. And may we not have faith in the water in our canteen, nor the water in the well. But may we have faith in the One True Living God who gives both the canteen and the well to his children.

© 2011, VoiceWind. . .Greg Loveless. All rights reserved.

Share

Twisted Customer Service

Posted by on May 12, 2011 No comments

Background:

Building a business in network marketing, with the right company, and the right product, has little downside to it except for one — it is vulnerable to a business builder in the network moving to another company. To complicate the issue further and make things worse, they may even try to take part of the network with them. The purpose of this article is to analyze this process and then provide ethical guidelines for this type of situation.

The Tactic:

Here is one recent tactic used by one up start network marketing company. As a note, although it should be obvious, this company is not a member of the DSA.

  1. The consultant decides to leave company “A” and move to company “B”.
  2. The consultant contacts via phone and/or email each of the clients and consultants in their downline in company “A”.
  3. The consultant informs each client and consultant in company “A” that if they need anything regarding product, etc. from company “A” they should contact the consultant’s immediate Upline consultant in company “A”.
  4. The consultant explains this is necessary because they will no longer be servicing them.
  5. This last comment raises the curiosity of the consultant/client who naturally asks “Why?”.
  6. The consultant then explains they are no longer with company “A” but they are now with company “B”.

Twisted Customer Service:

At first glance this may appear to be good customer service. But in reality it is actually extremely unethical. Here’s why.

This type of communication is what I call “Twisted Customer Service”. The consultant is not really calling the customer to give customer service. She calls the customer, and while pretending to offer customer service actually has an ulterior motive which is to inform the customer she is no longer with company “A” but is now with company “B”. She “twist” the customer service in a completely different direction.

In some cases the communication is not nearly this subtle. I have seen consultants in one company send out emails, not just to their downline, or those they knew before they started working with company “A”, but to every single email they have collected while in company “A”. This includes downline, sideline and upline consultants and clients. And, like the example above, the email had all their contact information, and all the information about the new company.

Imagine that. It would be no different than if a consultant, rather than send an email, called every one and told them the following:

“I am no longer with company “A”. I am now with company “B”. Here is what company “B” is about and by the way if you need anything here is my contact information.”

Unethical? You bet it is. So how do they justify this?

Business and Relationship:

Some see no issue with the above practice because they believe anyone they had a relationship with prior to joining company “A” is fair game and there is nothing unethical about recruiting them into the new company. They believe the relationship they have with each person takes precedence over the business aspect of the relationship.

The problem with this line of thought is it does not take into account everything that contributed to building the existing network. It may be true, that the network was built with persons the consultant had a relationship with, whether friends or family, prior to learning of company “A”. However, the network was also built based on the reputation of company "A", company "A's" products, along with any training and assistance that was given by this consultant’s sponsor and upline team in company "A".

Thus the prior relationship is only one of several factors that led them to become a part of the network in company “A”. Likewise it would be only one of several factors that would contribute to their choice to join company “B”. So it is no longer possible to extract the other aspects of the relationships. Thus it is not possible for the consultant to communicate with anyone in company “A’s” network, about matters of business, whether they are family or friends, in any capacity other than a representative of company “A”.

That’s because the moment a consultant makes the decision to leave company “A”, and move to company “B”, they stand outside company “A”. Any contact with any client or consultant in company “A”, for any purpose whatsoever means she is actually acting as an agent of company “B”. To use the resources of company “A”, for the purposes of company “B” is a violation of the DSA code of ethics. It is unethical.

For some this will not make sense. After all, they will argue that “I have a relationship with many of those in company “A’s” database”. So they justify contacting them about leaving company “A” and/or joining company “B”. But what they miss is this; it is not the relationship between a consultant and those in the network they talk to that determines the nature of the conversation. Rather, it is the content of the conversation that determines the conversation.

Since the consultant is no longer with company “A” any conversation regarding anything to do with the company “A” or company “B”, by definition makes it a business conversation, not a relational conversation. In light of this, since the consultant has already decided to leave company “A”, any of communication that is business related, is unethical.

The above “mix of relationships” in network marketing is why most companies I know of have some form of policy against cross sponsoring. There are two main reasons for this.

  1. It is unethical to use the resources of one company, in this case a database of people, to benefit another company.

  2. Moving an entire network of people has a negative impact on the income of those in the upline.

The Proper Ethical Response:

So what would be the proper ethical way to handle this type of situation where a consultant moves from company “A” to company “B”? Simple, the Consultant should call their Upline Consultant in company “A”, inform them they have decided to move to company “B” and have their upline consultant in company “A” service their clients.

It’s that simple. This not only provides the client with customer service but does so without introducing company “B” to them. This is ethical and is in accordance with the DSA (Direct Selling Association).

Rob Peter to Pay Paul:

It should also be understood that every client or consultant who is convinced to move from company “A” to company “B” has a negative impact on the income of the upline in company “A”. This is another compelling reason for a consultant who moves to another company to cease all communications with those in the previous company’s database. Their goal should be to reduce as much as possible any impact on their upline’s income. Sending out a notification similar to those mentioned above has the exact opposite effect.

But let’s be honest, this is exactly why they do it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with customer service. It has everything to do with “them”. It’s all about what will benefit them and their income. But this fails to take into account this fact: while cross sponsoring people from company “A” to company “B” to increase their income, there is also a corresponding direct negative impact on their upline’s income in company “A”. And with each act of cross sponsoring, the consultant increases their unethical load in the network.

Notify the Parent Company of the Decision to Leave:

There is one more issue, related to moving to another company that needs to be addressed. Once a consultant makes the decision to move to company “A”, their very first act should be a call to the headquarters of company “A” to inform them that they are now with company “B”, so all compensation checks from company “A” should cease immediately. Every check a consultant takes from company “A” after they have made the decision to become a consultant with company “B”, is an unethical act. These funds are taken under false pretenses and any funds that are taken under false pretenses are a form of stealing if not our right fraud.

Treacherous Business Partner:

It's possible a consultant could be ignorant of these ethical issues. Or it could that they are fully aware of the issues but chose to act unethically anyway. Either way it does not really matter because neither type of person will make for a successful business relationship. Why would you want to be in business with someone who can justify such obvious unethical behavior? Not to mention be associated with a company that allowed this type of unethical behavior in their organization.

So the moment someone engages in this type of behavior is the moment you need to eliminate them for any type of business relationship. But not only this person, you should also steer clear of the company that allows such behavior as well.

After all, if they can rationalize this type of behavior, when it is to their advantage, what other unethical behavior would they participate in when it is to their advantage? If they have no problem taking clients and consultants from company “A” to company “B”, they will likewise have no problem taking people from company “B” to the next company that comes along. This is no way to build a stable business, a stable income and consequently it is no way to build a true plan "B" into a plan "A".

© 2011, VoiceWind. . .Greg Loveless. All rights reserved.

Incoming search terms:

  • arbonne bankruptcy
  • arbonne consultant jesus christ
  • marketing voice wind
Share

Review of “The Next Millionaires” by Paul Zane Pilzer

Posted by on May 7, 2011 No comments

Paul Zane Pilzer’s book, The Next Millionaires, has great information on how to position yourself to take advantage of the next wave of wealth.

Now you may be thinking that this book is out dated because it was written before the latest economic issues arose and so his forecast missed the mark. In fact just the opposite is the case; Pilzer’s arguments make even more sense in the context of the recent economic downturn.

I highly recommend Chapter 2 “A Short History of Civilization” for those who want to understand the origin of the free enterprise economic situation. In addition Chapter 3 “The Economics of Scarcity” is great for those who want to understand why our thought process can get caught in downward spiral.

The central argument of the book is in Chapter 4; “The Economics of Abundance”. Here Pilzer presents his six laws of Economic Alchemy.

  1. The First Law: Resources are unlimited because our minds are unlimited
  2. The Second Law: Technology determines the supply of any given resource
  3. The Third Law: The advance of technology is determined by the exchange of information
  4. The Fourth Law: Technology determines need
  5. The Fifth Law: There is no limit to our economy because there is no limit to demand
  6. The Sixth Law: Your immediate economic potential is defined by your technology gap

A key point Pilzer makes is it used to be that one was born, lived and died in the same “T” or type of technology. But now “T” can change over the course of a life time. Pilzer gives several examples that are instructive. Because I had a great uncle who owned three sections of land in Kansas and almost two sections of land in Oklahoma, my favorite example is how technology has impacted farming.

In 1930, 30 million, or one third of the 100 million U.S. population were farmers. And those 30 million struggled to feed 100 million people. 50 years later in 1980, even though the population had increased to 300 million, there were now only 3 million farmers, or one percent of the population. And yet those 3 million farmers would feed 300 million, with an additional 50% of the food remaining for export. That is a 4,500% increase per farmer. A 1,000% increase per acre. Thus “T” created 100 times more land.

 

W = P W = P X T
1930 30 million farmers 1980 3 million farmers
Struggle to feed 100 million Feed 300 million
  With 50% remaining
  4,500% increase per farmer
  1,000% increase per acre
  “T” created 100 times more land

 

Note this shift in “T” took 50 years. But since then, “T” shifts have occurred at a much faster pace.

  • From 1976 to 1996 there were 130 million VCR’s sold in the US. That change in "T" took  only 20 years.
  • CD’s over took vinyl records in less than five years.
  • And it took less than two years to move from the VCR to DVD’s.

When technology is created, and those without it discover it, this creates what Pilzer calls a “T” Gap. When there is a “T” Gap the technology is transferred from those who have it to those who do not, but want it. The key to wealth is to position oneself in a “T” gap and take advantage of the wealth transfer from those who have the technology to those who do not have.

In the old Economics of Scarcity wealth was equal to physical resources. Pilzer represents this in the form of an equation:

W=P
(where W=Wealth and P=Physical Resources).

But in the Economics of Abundance wealth is equal to the physical resources times the technology applied to those physical resources. Pilzer represents this in the form of an equation:

W=PxT
(where W=Wealth, P=Physical Resources and T=Technology)

Pilzer points out that the equation W=PxT not only applies to nations but to the individual entrepreneur. Individually our wealth equals our personal resources “P”, times our technology “T”.

Pilzer states that in the new system the “P” are not just the physical resources, but are the people we know. “P stands for your relationships, knowledge and available hours.”

Pilzer’s Fourth Law states that “demand” and “need” do not drive technology. Rather, technology creates a new product and the new product creates the need. He gives the Sony Walkman as an example. Once the Walkman was created, people started finding all kinds of uses for it. It was possible to listen to music in a crowded café and not disturb others. And it could be used while working or jogging. Suddenly everyone had a use for a Walkman and they wanted one. This created the need.

The dynamics of how millionaires are created has changed over time as well.

  • Resource Millionaires: When the world was ruled by the old economics of W=P, millionaires were created through acquiring resources. The most common was land.
  • Distribution Millionaires: Starting in the 1950’s millionaires were created through physical distribution. The best example here is Wal-Mart.
  • Intellectual Millionaires: The next millionaires will be created through the process of educating consumers about products and services that will improve their lives. Product and services that a consumer currently does not know exist. This is where the fortunes of the future will be made.

“The gap between what people are using and what they could be using if they only know about it is huge and growing huger even as you read these words. And if you are the one to tell them about this technology, you stand to make a fortune.” (Page 71)

Pilzer makes a great point when he states that Direct Selling is almost wholly intellectual distribution. In addition;

“A person to person conversation is the most effective way, the most efficient way, and often the only way, to help bridge another person’s technology gap.” (page 85)

“In direct selling, the “property” that you develop is the network of direct sellers whose sales volume generates a commission to you, the creator of the network.” (page 87)

This type of enterprise has a spiritual nature to it.

“More than any other business, direct selling starts with the core: not with the product or the service, but with the process of helping other people, by teaching other people how to succeed, regardless of their education or what business or field they’ve been in. This is why I say that at its heart, building a direct selling business is a theological act every bit as much as it is an economic act.” (page 95)

I highly recommend "The Next Millionaires" as a base and framework from which to grow your business at any time, but especially during these current challenging economic times.

 

© 2011, VoiceWind. . .Greg Loveless. All rights reserved.

Incoming search terms:

  • paul zane pilzer economic alchemy
  • paul zane pilzer- next millionaires
Share

Seek Kingdom and Increase

Posted by on May 3, 2011 No comments

"Seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you."
— Matthew 6:33

In the original Greek "seek" is an active imperative verb. This means it is a command that what we should be doing is "actively seeking" the kingdom. In addition, in the Greek the term translated "seek" is made even more emphatic because it is the first word in the sentence.

The "Kingdom" refers to the royal dominion including the power and form of the government. For us this is the sphere of God's rule through Christ in this world. Once this "Kingdom" is found, it so alters everything it touches, that everything else is then added/increased to and in it.

This process is superior to seeking power and wealth first and then attempting to enter the kingdom. In this process the power and wealth may not conform to the structures within the kingdom of God. As a result, all that was gained prior to the kingdom, may be lost, whereas the power and wealth gained after seeking the kingdom of God will continue in the kingdom of God.

Thus power and wealth are not an either/or, rather it is an and/both with the kingdom of God taking first priority, and then everything else added to this. Once we are living within the "Kingdom of God", all that is gained within the Kingdom of God remains permanent in some form, just as the Kingdom of God remains.

© 2011, VoiceWind. . .Greg Loveless. All rights reserved.

Share

Glorious Body

Posted by on May 1, 2011 No comments

Paul writes,

"He will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself."
— Philippians 3:21

Our current body is brought into conformity with Christ's resurrected body, which has overcome death, and which is now in a state of glory, and this process of transformation is done by the same power through which the entire creation was subjected to Him.

If the power that subjected the entire creation to Him, is the same power that will change our current bodies into bodies that have a glory like His, then although this is no small thing for us, it is easy for Him. For we are only a small portion of the entire creation that He has brought into subjection.

In addition the "subjection of all things" took place at the creation, for "all things have been created through him and for him" (Colossians 1:16). So although for us the transformation of our body is a future event, it is not a future event for God. The process has already been worked out, secured and proven, and Christ has passed through this and made it a reality for us. The only thing standing between us and a glorious body like Christ's, is for us to take the same journey that Christ did to receive His glorious body, death.

From our perspective death has total power for it is the end of our mortal body. But from God's perspective, death no longer has any power because beyond it is resurrection and a body of glory that death cannot touch.

© 2011, VoiceWind. . .Greg Loveless. All rights reserved.

Incoming search terms:

  • greg loveless genesis accout of creation
Share

© 2008-2012 VoiceWind All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright