Tag Archives: ethic

Arbonne Chapter 11 Impacts Business Builder Recruiting Ethic

Posted by on December 1, 2009 No comments

The Arbonne Opportunity Presentation states that those considering being an Arbonne business builder should do their due diligence. Part of that due diligence is checking out the stability of the company. In the past Consultants who shared the Arbonne business handled this in various ways with the three most common being:

  1. In the ancient days Consultants stated that Arbonne was debt free. This fact eliminated a significant amount of financial risk.
  2. When this ended Consultants would list the years Arbonne had been in business. In addition they stated Arbonne was a financially solid company.
  3. When Harvest Partners took over Consultants would refer to Harvest Partner's financial stability.

But all this ended with the current financial difficulties Arbonne is facing as they go through a "Reorganization" or what is legally termed a "Chapter 11".

So in light of the current situation how does a Consultant handle the issue of due diligence as it pertains to Arbonne's financial stability?

There is an Ally Bank TV Commercial where an adult asks a young girl if she would like a pony. She says yes. He takes a toy pony out of his pocket and gives it to her. She says thank you. He then asks the next young girl if she wants a pony. She says yes. He calls to a pony and a real life pony comes walking out. The first girl says, "You didn't say we could have a real one." The adult says, "You didn't ask!" The announcer then says, "Even kids know its not right to hold out on somebody."

The same is true when a Consultant shares the Arbonne Business Opportunity knowing Arbonne's current financial difficulties. To withhold information from a person that could alter their decision contains the same ethical load as lying to them. By withholding this information you prevent the potential business builder from knowing all the risks.

Now there is nothing wrong with risk. All businesses carry some risk. But risk, in order to be ethical, must be known by the person taking the risk. Even if I think it is worth the risk, this does not justify the ethic when someone else is making the decision for themselves and their family. The only way to justify the ethic is to give the full information to the person making the decision.

So the question is, "What is the risk to join Arbonne?" The answer, to be honest is, none of the Consultants in the field really know what the true risks are because none of them have seen the books. All the field hears is what they hear from Arbonne Corporate. So is that enough to satisfy due diligence?

When I was the Director of an IT department I would regularly receive calls from head hunters who were looking to fill a position that my skills set matched. If I was interested I would take the information the head hunter provided about the position and the company.

But my due diligence never stopped there. I never took a head hunter's word when it came to the financial stability of a company because there was a conflict of interest. The head hunter had a vested interest in making that company look as good as possible in order to get me to say yes, because my yes benefited them.

The same is true with Arbonne. Arbonne Corporate has a conflict because they have a vested interest and are naturally going to put the best possible spin on things to paint the brightest picture. And any one who is already a Consultant in Arbonne, who is building a business, also has a conflict of interest because they want what Arbonne Corporate is saying to be true and to work out because they have time and treasure invested in the process.

So in light of this what does an Arbonne Consultant who is sharing the Arbonne business need to do to meet the ethics of full disclosure? The following provides full disclosure and is the only ethical way to share the Arbonne business in the current environment.

  1. State that Arbonne has been in business for over 30 years.
  2. State that Arbonne is still a leader in the industry.
  3. State that Arbonne is currently going through a financial reorganization.
  4. To be accurate make sure to use the terms "financial restructuring through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy".
  5. State that no Consultant has seen the books, and there has been no independent audit published.
  6. And, in the Arbonne spirit, encourage them to do their own due diligence before they make a decision.

Any less than the above does not fulfill the ethical requirement for full disclosure of risk.

Once Arbonne files the articles of bankruptcy in US Court, this would give final proof that there is an agreement with the creditors as a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy can only be filed if the creditors are in agreement with the restructuring. So once there is an announcement that the papers have been filed with the court, this confirms the stability of Arbonne. Then it takes 45 to 60 days to complete the process. Once the process is complete, Consultants would no longer have to state #3, #4 & #5 listed above.  

What if you are on the other end of the conversation? What are you to do if you are being recruited by an Arbonne Consultant to do the business during this time of transition? Ultimately it is up to each individual. But there is one fact to keep in mind. You must know all the risk to weigh all the risk. So my advice is — Rah, Rah does not replace due diligence. Only facts provide due diligence.

See my updated post on Arbonne Restructuring through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy at: Arbonne Chapter 11 Bankruptcy & Restructuring Links.

See all posts on Arbonne Restructuring through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy at: www.voicewind.net/category/arbonne/arbonne-bankruptcy-arbonne/

© 2009 – 2010, VoiceWind. . .Greg Loveless. All rights reserved.

Incoming search terms:

  • is arbonne an at risk company
  • arbonne current financial status
Share

Summary and Conclusion – Arbonne Results Approach Analysis

Posted by on October 27, 2009 No comments

The following is a summary of the main points contained in original 14 posts of "The Arbonne Results Approach Analysis". For the full information on any sections below, click on the heading title link and it will take you to that post.

The Two Types of Volume in the Arbonne Results Approach:

  1. Actual Consumable Volume: In the Group Presentation and the One-on-One Systems all the volume comes from orders placed by customers who in most cases will use and consume the product which will result in a large percentage of these persons reordering. This system produces a large consumer base with residual income which makes for a stable network.
  2. Potential Consumable Volume: In the Results Approach System all the volume from the "Result Kits" is "potential consumable volume". It only becomes "actual consumable volume" when the "Result Kit" is purchased or generates a purchase of a Results Set. In addition, any volume in a network that is "potential consumable volume", since it is not being consumed, it stands outside Dr. Charles King's "consumable product definition" which is one of the keys to a successful business.

Failure Rate in the Arbonne Results Approach:

  1. Only 3% of the population actual does what it takes, and does what it takes long enough to be successful.
  2. As a result of the above there is always failure in the system.
  3. But the data from our analysis showed that the failure rate was significantly increased in those networks that used the Results Approach.
  4. The greater the percentage of volume in a network that is from the Results Approach, the greater the failure rate.
  5. The cause of this is the "potential consumable volume" from the Results Kits. The more "potential consumable volume" there is the greater the risk that this "potential consumable volume" will never be converted from potential to "actual consumable volume".

There are two issues caused by the data we outlined above.

  1. The first is the Result Kits are never converted into consumable volume which means that line flashes out and dies. Because if they cannot move their kits, they are not going to bring anyone else into Arbonne.
  2. This impacts residual income. In a Group or One-on-One Presentation System all volume has the potential to be residual income, for those Kits that are not moved there is a 0% chance that there will be a reorder. Thus the impact on residual income is dramatic and devastating due to the 50 to 80% failure rate and the 0% of reorders from Result Kits that are not moved.

Potential Volume is False Volume and Increases Failure Rate in the Arbonne Results Approach:

  1. Because there is a known 50% to 80% failure rate in networks that do the Results Approach.
  2. And because this menas 50% to 80% of the upfront potential volume from Result Kits will never be converted to actual consumable volume.
  3. This means the "potential consumable volume" in a network is false volume.
  4. The greater the percentage of false volume in a network, the greater the odds are that this network will fail.

The Pyramid Scheme Tipping Point in the Arbonne Results Approach:

  1. The key element that distinguishes a legitimate Multilevel Marketing Network from a Pyramid Scheme is a legitimate network is compensated for selling product to consumers and establishing a market.
  2. Pyramid Schemes on the other hand make their profit on volume sales to new recruits who buy the product.
  3. As the DSA Website says: "IF YOU COULD BE STUCK WITH UNSOLD INVENTORY, BEWARE! Legitimate companies which require inventory purchases will usually “buy back” unsold products if you decide to quit the business. Some state laws and the DSA Code of Ethics require buy-backs for at least 90% of your original cost."

What does this mean for the Results Approach?

  1. Since the Result Kits are product sold to recruits
  2. Since there is a known 50% to 80% failure rate
  3. That means 50% to 80% of the recruits will be left holding product
  4. This percentage tips an Arbonne business from a legitimate network into a pyramid
  5. The attempt to escape this reality by saying the percentage of failure volume compared to the overall volume in the network is minimal does not address the ethical and legal issues.
  6. Even if the total percentage of failure volume in the entire network stays below the tipping point, this does not mean the localized network that was processing 100% as a pyramid scheme is now legitimate.
  7. Those impacted by a localized network processing 100% as a pyramid, are impacted 100% by a pyramid scheme.
  8. Failure to deal with this ethical issue taints the network involved, those that put such a system into motion, those that allow it to continue, those who profit from it and the company as well.

Transfer of Ethical Responsibility:

The practice by Upline Consultants and by Arbonne Corporate of using the Independent Consultant Agreement as a sheild to protect themselves is not a legitimate ethical option and, now with notification, is not a legitimate legal option either. This is especially true in light of the fact that there is a business model that will eliminate the upfront potential volume so Arbonne Corporate does not have to walk this tight rope.

 

The Ethical Dilemma Caused by the Arbonne Results Approach:

Any upfront purchase of Results Kits places the new business builder in an ethical dilemma because their upfront risk can only be reduced by adding more business builders to the network with the same upfront risk they have so they can be compensated. Here are some ways out of this ethical dilemma.

  1. The new recruit could wait and see if she can find four people to place the same upfront order thereby reducing or eliminating her risk. But then the new recruit would have to allow her new recruits to do the same. The problem is that this can go on ad infinitum down the food chain. But this fails because at some point this process has to end and when it does someone is holding "potential" not "actual consumable volume".
  2. The Upline Consultant can guarantee to buy back any "potential" volume that is not moved. But this ethic is not offered because it would place new recruits at a high risk and thus no one would bite on the offer.
  3. Upline Consultant could (and this has been done) explain to the new recruit that they have 45 days to move the product and if they cannot they can return it to Arbonne under the 45 money back guarantee. But this is not an ethical solution as this 45 day money back guarantee was implemented for the customer not to reduce a business builders risk.

So if there is a system that can build an Arbonne business without the upfront risk, why this system with risk?

Because the Upline Consultant gets paid immediately on the up front volume from the Result Kits even though this is all potential and not actual consumable volume. 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.

 

Results Approach Temporary Balloon Effect on Existing Networks:

Beyond the ethical and legal there is the simple fact that the potential consumable volume in the Results Approach creates a balloon effect on an existing network.

What is the balloon effect?

  1. Let's say you have an existing RVP network that is doing $120,000 a month in volume. This volume is all product sold to consumers so it is actual consumable volume.
  2. This network has 30 active business builders in it.
  3. The RVP decides they are going to do the Results Approach and all 30 business builders purchase $2,500 in Result Kits.
  4. $2,500 in Result Kits times 30 Business Builders equals $75,000 in additional income over the existing actual consumable income in the network.
  5. This $75,000 added to the $120,000 totals $195,000 and pushes this RVP into qualification.
  6. But the additional $75,000 is all potential consumable volume and what ever portion is not converted from potential to actual consumable volume will eventually flush out of the network.
  7. The amount of potential consumable volume that is not converted to actual consumable volume will be the amount of eventual down turn in the network.

The Mathematics of Weakness in the Arbonne Results Approach:

  1. The Results Approach is really a One-on-One System.
  2. Thus the fact that a Consultant using a One-on-One System has to compensate for this by increasing activity is a weakness of the Results Approach.
  3. To compensate for this the upfront quantity of Results Approach Kits are increased .
  4. But this causes the network to build faster with business builders and consequently with less consumers.
  5. As a result the potential consumable volume form the upfront orders moves down the network levels more rapidly.
  6. This in turn causes the volume from the Results Kits to more quickly pass out of the pay range of the Upline Consultant. When this happens their paycheck suddenly decreases accordingly.
  7. The only way to correct this is for this Upline Consultant to add more business builders into the system directly to her or to build a consumer network.
  8. The result of the above scenario is what I call "The Mathematics of Weakness" in the Result Approach.

Arbonne Results Approach is Fast Track Because of the Failure Volume:

  1. Because the Results Approach is really a One-on-One System, the increased volume cannot be attributed to the efficiency of the system.
  2. Our research indicates those networks that used the Results Approach without large upfront orders grew at or below those that used a Group Presentation System.
  3. So where does the "Fast Track" volume come from?
  4. In a non-Results Approach System if a Consultant starts and then quits, the Upline Sponsor only gets paid on the amount of success that person had while they did the business.
  5. But in a Results Approach System, if a Consultant starts and then quits, the Upline Sponsor will get paid on all the volume in the upfront orders or the front loaded volume.
  6. So in the second case the up-line Consultant was paid before she made the new Consultants successful. In fact she was paid even though the new Consultant may have failed. I call this type of revenue that comes from the upfront orders of Consultants that fail, “failure volume”.

Ethical & Unethical Use of the Arbonne Results Approach:

  1. Because in the Results Approach System the Upline gets paid on this volume whether or not those in her downline can move the Results Kits and convert that volume from potential to actual consumable volume.
  2. And because there is a 50% to 80 % failure rate.
  3. And because a large portion of this additional volume in the Results Approach Network comes from the failure in the system.
  4. In light of this everyone has to ask themselves this question. Do I want to build an Arbonne business with a system that will produce more revenue, when all or most of this additional revenue is generated by the failure in the system?
  5. In light of the information above, "Large Upfront Orders Make the Arbonne Results Approach Unethical".
  6. The above is not an incidental consequence. These facts change everything. When data indicates that the additional revenue is generated by the failure in the system, a decision to use the Results Approach System as opposed to any other system ceases to be a business strategy decision. Rather, it is now both an ethical decision and a legal decision, and, in light of this data there is really only one correct answer.
  7. The data we have uncovered would indicates that there is an ethical way to build an Arbonne business using the Results Approach, but a Results Approach System which includes upfront retail volume that the Upline Consultant gets paid on prior to it being actual consumable volume; this system is not included in this ethic.

Options to Make the Arbonne Results Approach Ethically Viable:

  1. The first option is for Arbonne Corporate to issue a directive. But specific direction could be a violation of this independent consultant relationship. As a result any option that could only be enforced by corporate fiat is not workable in the case of Arbonne.
  2. The second option falls into the category of the slippery slop. In these cases a recommendation is provided by the Arbonne Corporate that would keep the Arbonne Results Approach within the ethical guidelines such as only 2 or 3 Results Approach Kits are allowed. This would then reduce the large upfront orders that result in front loading and then push the network over the pyramid scheme tipping point. However, due to Arbonne Corporates inability to enforce this limit without violating the Independent Consultant relationship this option is not workable.
  3. The third options is the use of sample packs in conjunction with the Results Approach Kits. This is one option that Arbonne Corporate attempted to implement. For details visit the Arbonne University Results Approach Training. But enforcement of this once again runs into the conflicts as Arbonne Corporate directing an Independent Consultant. To be absolutely open and honest about this, and with all due respect to Arbonne Corporate, this strategy was less a solution to the ethical issues the Results Approach inflicted upon the Arbonne field and appears to be more of a basic CYA for Arbonne Corporate. Because the only issue the sample pack addressed was cleanliness and thus Arbonne Corporate liability in this regard. The training did not address the ethical and legal issue of the upfront volume from the Result Kits. In fact the Arbonne University Training made this issue even worse because a new Consultant can still be enticed into purchasing a large quantity of these Result Kits which still places the new Consultant at risk, and the Arbonne Results Approach Training appears to give the Arbonne seal of approval to this system. Thus Arbonne is complicit in this risk. This strategy implemented by Arbonne in this Results Approach Training, was legalese, and created a wall of protection around Arbonne Corporate while at the same time it left those in the field totally vulnerable to the very same ethic from which Arbonne Corporate had protected itself. In essence, the field had been left to swim with the sharks as Arbonne profited from this system.
  4. A fourth option would be for Arbonne Corporate to force the Sponsoring Consultant to buy back any Result Approach Kits that are not sold. This would bring even those Consultant’s networks that use large upfront Results Approach orders in line with the standards as set out by the DSA web site. But Arbonne Corporate would once again be on shaky ground when it came to enforcing this on an Independent Consultant. Not to mention there would be a lot of “he said, she said” and no one wins in these situations which would ultimately leave Arbonne exposed.
  5. A fifth option would be for Arbonne Corporate itself to buy back the Kits. But this would only provide greater incentive to those Consultants who were pushing the unethical boundaries with the Result Approach Kits to push them even farther. After all, if you have a sugar daddy who is going to pick up the tab if those you sponsor cannot move the Result Approach Kits, why worry about whether the prospect can actually move the kits. Do the hard sale and move on to the next. Can anyone say Fannie May and Freddie Mac.
  6. The sixth option would be to leave the Results Approach System in tact but this allows a consumable product with retail volume to be purchased as a business aid which allows the upline Consultant to benefit monetarily from this volume. So to prevent Consultants from returning any Results Approach Kits that are purchased in large quantities to Arbonne, or to prevent these Result Approach Kits from appearing on E-bay,  each Result Approach Kit would have to be tagged with a unique ID so it could be traced back to the source. This option is not feasible because it is cost prohibitive.

Our Recommendation that Creates an Ethic Proof Results Approach System:

The only viable option would be for Arbonne to provide Consultants with testers that have a 3 to 7 day supply and are self contained. This solution has the following advantages:

  1. It eliminates the potential contamination that the full size systems are susceptible to.
  2. It does not require a directive or edict from Arbonne Corporate thus protecting the legal separation between Arbonne Corporate and the Independent Consultant’s business.
  3. It would allow Arbonne Corporate to categorize these testers as a business aids. This is important because items that are classified as Business Aids have no retail volume attached to them. Consequently this would take away the incentive to up-line Consultants to push large upfront orders so they could receive monetary compensation on Results Approach Kits.
  4. It would eliminate the need for Arbonne to dance the ethical line by on the one hand supporting the Results Approach System (Trainings, etc.) and on the other hand recommending that Consultants:
    • Use sample packs in conjunction with the Results Approach Kits (which they cannot enforce)
    • That the Consultants are responsible for any contamination to the Results Approach Kits (which again they cannot enforce)
    • Try to prevent front loading by questioning those who order large quantities of RE9 Systems (which again they cannot enforce)

© 2009 – 2010, VoiceWind. . .Greg Loveless. All rights reserved.

Share

Ethical & Unethical Use of the Arbonne Results Approach

Posted by on October 23, 2009 No comments

In light of the previous post Arbonne Results Approach is Fast Track Because of the Failure Volume it is obvious that the increase in volume in a Results Approach Network, as compared to the volume in a Group Presentation Network, comes from the volume in the large upfront orders because the upline gets paid on this volume whether or not those in her downline can move the Results Kits and convert that volume from potential to actual consumable volume. And because there is a 50% to 80 % failure rate, a large portion of this additional volume in the Results Approach Network comes from the failure in the system.

Large Upfront Orders Make the Arbonne Results Approach Unethical:

In light of this everyone has to ask themselves this question. Do I want to build an Arbonne business with a system that will produce more revenue, when all or most of this additional revenue is generated by the failure in the system?

This is not an incidental consequence. These facts change everything. When data indicates that the additional revenue is generated by the failure in the system, a decision to use the Results Approach System as opposed to any other system ceases to be a business strategy decision. Rather, it is now an ethical decision and, in light of this data there is really only one correct answer. The data we have uncovered would indicates that there is an ethical way to build an Arbonne business using the Results Approach, but a Results Approach System which includes large upfront orders is not included in this ethic.

If you disagree, before you respond remember what John C. Maxwell says about ethics.

“There is no such thing as business ethics. Just ethics! Those who use one ethic for family, another ethic for their spiritual life and another ethic for business will always get into trouble. There are not different types of ethics. There is just ethics.”

Ethical Use of the Results Approach:

I mentioned at the beginning of this article that Linda has Consultants in her organization who do the Results Approach and are successful. If what I have just laid out is true, how can that be and why would Linda allow it; how could she ethically allow it? It has to do with balance and quantity. Those Consultants in Linda’s network who are building a successful business and use the Results Approach use it as a supplemental to the Group or One-on-One Presentations. If someone cannot get to the presentation then a Results drop off is used or they do the Results with certain people. This causes two main differences:

  1. They are not building their network with large up front orders so there is no false volume in the network.
  2. They are creating a network of consumers and the Results Approach is just another method to accomplish that.

This is why the Consultants in Linda’s network who are using the Results Approach are successful. Most use it as a supplemental to the Groups Presentation System. As a Result, the percentage of Potential Consumable Volume in their network is minimal or zero and as a result they have taken the risk of the “Potential Consumable Volume”, the “Pyramid Tipping Point” and the “Mathematics of Weakness” out of their networks all by eliminating large upfront orders. In so doing they have also altered the ethic.

All posts regarding the Arbonne Results Approach Analysis

© copyright 2009 VoiceWind & Greg Loveless

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

Incoming search terms:

  • results method arbonne
Share

The Ethical Dilemma Caused by the Arbonne Results Approach

Posted by on October 21, 2009 No comments

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 – 2010, VoiceWind. . .Greg Loveless. All rights reserved.

Share

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