This website is dedicated to making information about MonaVie available. I will try to be unbiased, but I will be looking for
objective information. We'll try to analyze the every aspect of Monavie, but there will be a focus on the value of MonaVie to the consumer.
We'll also put some effort on the business opportunity that MonaVie presents and evaluate it's potential.
A few hours ago, I wrote about MonaVie Pulse vs. Benecol Smart Chews in Lowering Cholesterol. The result was that MonaVie Pulse costs around $6.21 and Benecol Smart Chews were $0.24 for a near equivalent 0.8g plant stanol/sterol (the Benecol had slightly more). However, I just saw a related product so I thought I’d click on that…
It seems that 240 pills of CholestOff is available from Amazon for $18.81. Each pill provides 900mg of plant sterols – 100mg more than 4 ounces of MonaVie Pulse. Doing the math, that comes out to $0.07 per pill.
So you can either pay $6.21 for MonaVie Pulse or get something more effective for $0.07. If you are buying MonaVie Pulse because you were told that it helps with cholesterol, you should note that they are charging more than 88 times for what you can get elsewhere. Over the course of a year, the decision to substitute MonaVie Pulse with CholestOff will save your family thousands of dollars.
I’ve heard a lot of distributors claim that drinking MonaVie Original and/or MonaVie Active “gives them energy.” This is a fairly hard thing to prove as I only know of one way to objectively measuring energy – calories. MonaVie’s label lists it as having 30 calories a serving. This is a small amount of “energy”, since the normal diet is recommended at 2000 a calories a day. You’d need to take 66 servings of MonaVie a day to get the recommended energy in your diet. At a wholesale cost of 80 cents a serving ($20 for 25 1oz servings), this would cost you $52.80 a day!
Fortunately, MonaVie has indirectly proven that MonaVie Original and MonaVie Active do not provide any “real energy.” They’ve released this nugget when launching their MonaVie Energy (eMV) drink:
A significant number of energy drinks are also available in sugar free or low carbohydrate versions. These products provide very little if any “real energy,” since energy comes from calories.
You can find on that on many MonaVie sites. It’s not a coincidence that so many sites have this exact marketing pitch. The three paragraphs that the sentence comes from is exactly the same on many, many sites. All these distributors didn’t come up with the same wording independently of each other.
So if someone tells you that MonaVie Original or MonaVie Active provide them with energy, you can conclude one of three things:
It is the placebo effect – If this is true, the person should look for a cheaper placebo and save their hard earned dollars. Placebos should cost pennies. For someone to charge $40 (or even $20 when purchased in bulk), is fraud.
The person is a liar – They are simply telling you that they receive this energy because they are making a buck selling you juice
MonaVie (and the person distributing MonaVie Energy) is a liar – The material that they are sending out quoted above is false and that energy can come from drinks with few calories (including MonaVie Original and MonaVie Active and other drinks with “few calories”).
If there’s a four possible scenario that I didn’t anticipate, let me know in the comments.
As we know one day’s worth (4oz.) of MonaVie costs between $3.20 (distributor price of $20/25oz. bottle) and $7.20 (retail price of $45/25oz. bottle). A single Red Delicious apple costs about $0.75.
The 4oz. of MonaVie has a ORAC of 2,698 umoles (29.57 ml per oz multiplied by 4 oz. multiplied by an ORAC score of 22.81 – according to AIBMR’s study by MonaVie board member Alex Schauss (see page 8329 of the journal, first paragraph in the “Results” heading)). It also gives you a total phenolics (all antioxidants) of 175 mg. The 22.81 ORAC and 1.48 mg phenolics are from the MonaVie-sponsored study by AIBMR Life Sciences.
A single Red Delicious apple has an average weight 150 gms. Total ORAC per apple: 6,413 umoles. (42.75 umoles times 150 gms). Total phenolics (total antioxidants): 520 mg per apple. Apple data from USDA ORAC Table of Selected Foods – 2007
SUMMARY:
ORAC: MonaVie 2,698, Apple 6,413 (Apple is more than 2 as much)
PHENOLICS: MonaVie 175 mg Apple 520 mg (Apple is more than twice as much)
COST: MonaVie $3.20 to $7.20 per day Apple $0.75/day (apple is 5 or 10 times cheaper)
Is MonaVie the Fastest Company to $1 Billion Dollars in Revenue?
I often hear claims of it being the fastest to $1 billion in revenue. True?
I’ve seen quite a few people in my previous thread comment that MonaVie is the fastest growing company in the United States. Others say that it is the fastest company to $1 billion in revenue (See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Clicking on any of those links will show that people are using this information as justification of MonaVie’s value.
I haven’t been able to find documentation of the $1 billion in sales. Is this independently audited or is this Monavie reporting the numbers themselves? If it’s independently audited, I’d like to see the paper work. Since Monavie is a private company, I suspect that this number isn’t audited (they aren’t required to). If the only source of this information is MonaVie and unaudited, perhaps it’s a case where they are trying to take advantage of the adage, “Nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd.” Are they trying to drive sales by pretending that sales are already made?
MonaVie gives discounts for big bulk purchases. If this $1 billion number is to be believed, does it include product that is in distributor’s hands waiting to actually be sold? MonaVie probably counts it as a sale since they’ve made their money. However, supplying distributors with product is different from selling it in the traditional model. We should note the difference, because if a product is sitting in a distributor’s warehouse, it’s what I’d call “sold.”
In another note, One MonaVie distributor suggested that I become a distributor and buy a year’s worth of MonaVie in advance to get the best price. If I buy a year’s worth, does MonaVie amortize those sales over the span of a year? I would guess not.
Another thought… YouTube was around for 18 months when it was sold for a 1.65B valuation. I know that’s not a revenue number, but if it decided to give away $1.50 worth of stock to everyone that wanted to give it $1, it could have had a billion dollars in revenue.
The music industry made the following claims against Napster:
(1) That its users were directly infringing the plaintiff’s copyright;
(2) That Napster was liable for contributory infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright; and
(3) That Napster was liable for vicarious infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright.
The court found Napster liable on all three claims.
Napster lost the case in the District Court and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although the Ninth Circuit found that Napster was capable of commercially significant non-infringing uses, it affirmed the District Court’s decision. On remand, the District Court ordered Napster to monitor the activities of its network and to block access to infringing material when notified of that material’s location. Napster was unable to do this, and so shut down its service in July 2001.
Let’s see what we have here:
1) The company’s users were directly breaking the law
2) The company was liable for contributing to them breaking the law
3) The company was liable for vicariously breaking the law
The company went back and said that it’s product can be used in significant number of legitimately legal cases or which the court agreed on the condition that they stop the illegal uses. The company was unable to do this and shut down it’s business.
Now go back to the above synopsis of Napster and substitute “The company” for MonaVie. Doesn’t that seem ominous for MonaVie? What’s different? If I were a MonaVie distributor, I’d be very careful not to count on the income stream to feed my family.
The CEO in a Newsweek already said that it is unable to filter out the illegal activity:
Meanwhile an 18-person compliance department investigates distributors suspected of making false claims—although with a million sales people on the books, that’s easier said than done. “It’s next to impossible,” Larsen concedes, “like herding cats.”
I was initially quite excited that freeze-dried acai could scientifically be proven to have far greater ORAC scores than other berries. Perhaps it is the scientific break-through that he claims it to be. To review, here’s what Alex Schauss says:
I would have needed another three screens to the right of my computer to let that arrow accurately define it’s difference compared to freeze-dried samples of other foods that we looked at – that the USDA looked at. It was off the chart.(Timestamp of 2:23)
The bold emphasis there is mine. There’s also this:
again you can see the high bar that is acai and all of these others which are moisture equivalent and they are also freeze-dried samples. So you can there is a vast difference between the two. So Gram to gram… (Timestamp of 3:43)
I had always contended that Schauss was measuring two different things: one freeze-dried acai… the other typical berries. This would be a troubling comparison because most everyone knows that water makes up 90% of fruit. If you take the water out of acai you can get 10x more ORAC score if you are measuring “gram to gram” of something that still has 90% of it’s water. As such, I always thought that we needed a fair test, one that is moisture equivalent as he states. And now that we have it, let’s celebrate the freeze-dried acai berry, right?
The bar chart falsely quotes one of Schauss’ studies [J Agric Food Chem. 2006;54(22):8604-10] as the source of this data, when in fact his study did not report the ORAC values of other fruits.
Reference #14 in the previous bullet point was a study listed the ORAC values for various non-freeze-dried fruits published by Wu et al. [J Agric Food Chem. 2004;52:4026-37].
The H-ORAC values for “full moisture” cranberry and blueberry listed in the Wu article are about 92 per gram
Since we know that 90% of the weight of full moisture berries is water, we would need to multiply the cranberry and blueberry by 10 to get their freeze-dried ORAC score.
That gives us 996.9 umol TE/g for acai vs. 920 umol TE/g for blueberry cranberry. Dr. Alex Schauss didn’t seem to convert for wet vs. dry very well. Acai still wins, but by less than 10% – clearly not the “three computer screens” that Dr. Alex Schauss says suggests.
This victory for minor victory for freeze-dried acai is short-lived… the paper goes on to say:
Contradictorily and surprisingly, the contents of anthocyanins, proanthocyanadins, and other polyphenol compounds in this freeze-dried product were found to be much lower than those found in blueberry or other berries with elevated H-ORAC values. To make things even more confusing, the total phenolics in acai was found to be only 13.9 mg/g GAE
The interesting thing to me is that this is exactly what Men’s Journal said about MonaVie, “[MonaVie Active] tested extremely low in anthocyanins and phenolics… even apple juice (which also tested poorly) has more phenolics…”
Now is a good time to mention that freeze-dried acai and MonaVie are not one in the same. Most distributors will talk about freeze-dried acai, and then hand you a bottle of MonaVie as if it’s the same thing. We know the ORAC scores on MonaVie from other AIMBR tests and that’s not any prettier.
“When comparing ORAC data, care must be taken to ensure that the units and food being compared are similar. Some evaluations will compare ORAC units per grams dry weight, others will evaluate ORAC units wet weight and still others will look at ORAC units/serving. Under each evaluation, different foods can appear to have higher ORAC values. Although a raisin has no more antioxidant potential than the grape from which it was dried, raisins will appear to have a much higher ORAC value per gram wet weight than grapes due to their reduced water content. Likewise, watermelons large water content can make it appear as though they are very low in antioxidants.”
So in short, one must consider the amount of water in the food sample. The more water, the lower the ORAC score per gram of that food. When something that is freeze-dried the water is removed. With all the water weight taken out, you are left with a nutrient-dense power. This is the reason for the high ORAC scores.
So because MonaVie has freeze-dried acai as the first ingredient on the label, it must have a high ORAC value, right? Well, no. You’ll note that the first ingredient is actually “Proprietary blend of Acai (freeze-dried powder and acai puree).” There’s no way to know how much freeze-dried acai is part of that proprietary blend. It could legally be one-billionth of a gram. This would explain why AIBMR’s study by MonaVie board member Alex Schauss showed that MonaVie actually didn’t have a high ORAC score (getting trounced by an apple: MonaVie vs. an Apple).
It’s recently come to light that MonaVie’s MORE Project may be misusing its donated funds. According to The MORE Project’s Website, “The MORE Project seeks to change lives and restore families living in poverty in Brazil.”
More Project Mission Statement
However, we see that the MORE Project is not putting it’s money to that cause:
MonaVie Premier says: “At MonaVie’s October 2007 Anaheim Regional Meeting, all donations to the MORE Project went directly to the Red Cross to aid those affected by the devastating wildfires in Southern California.”
MonaVie MORE California Wildfires
The MonaVie collaborates: “At MonaVie’s October 2007 Anaheim Regional Meeting, all donations to the MORE Project went directly to the Red Cross to aid those affected by the devastating wildfires in Southern California.”
Is Larsen taking donations to the MORE Project and giving them to the Red Cross in his own name? If so, it would reflect very poorly on MonaVie.
Or is the MORE Project misusing it’s funds for purposes other than the ones stated in the charity’s charter as the websites state? If so, that would reflect very poorly on MonaVie’s MORE Project.
I can’t figure out a scenario where MonaVie doesn’t come out looking bad, can you?
MonaVie’s Media Center is informing people about new FTC guidelines effective Dec. 1st, 2009. That lead them to release these 4 tips (well they released 5, but the 5th one isn’t very important):
Truthful and Typical
MonaVie says:
“MonaVie distributors who provide testimonials online AND offline must be truthful AND be subject to typical results… testimonials about MonaVie products or money making opportunities must conform to MonaVie approved statements… While distributors may not think of themselves as ‘advertisers’ nor their individual stories as ‘endorsements’ the new guidelines seem to explain otherwise. An endorsement is any advertising message… that would imply is the opinion, experience, belief or finding of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser.”
Analysis: It would now seem to violate FTC guidelines to say that you even believe or your experience with MonaVie was related to anything medical-related. That can not be considered “typical results” with the exception of mentioning plant sterols in MonaVie Pulse. One way a distributor could get around this is the “I am not a MonaVie distributor, but…” line that many have seen before. Of course such claims should have zero weight in your decision of whether to buy MonaVie because of the high likelihood that it really is a distributor just trying to sneak around the FTC’s guidelines. This is another why MonaVie medical testimonies are pointless
MonaVie gives two examples of poor claims:
MonaVie says:
“MonaVie Pulse restored my eyesight.” – While that maybe an honest opinion, it is not a typical result, and therefore, any such opinion posted online or said offline would be in violation of the current guidelines, unless there is valid research to support the claim.
Analysis: Kudos to MonaVie for giving a clear example. It is, however, quite sad that they think “MonaVie Pulse restored my eyesight” is a statement of “an honest opinion” and not one of scientific fact (it either did or did not restore your eyesight). They would have been wise to make it more clear by saying, “I believe MonaVie Pulse restored my eyesight”, which is an honest opinion that is not typical.
MonaVie says:
“I made $25,000, in one month with MonaVie, and you can too.” While this statement may be true…the result is not “typical”. Such statements would be in violation of the current guidelines. Whenever discussing earnings, you should refer to the Income Disclosure Statement and provide the link or the actual document.
Analysis: Nicely done by MonaVie to give a money example. It would seem that distributors can’t talk dreams of becoming Black Diamonds either without referencing the Income Disclosure Statement and showing people that the odds are up there with some lotteries.
Distributor Disclosure Mandatory
MonaVie says:
“Distributors must disclose their relationship or identify themselves as a MonaVie independent distributor when making comments in regards to MonaVie or MonaVie products on blogs, websites, message boards, social networking sites (ex. Facebook, Twitter, etc.), etc… Posting the disclosure simply on your blog or social networking page is not enough; you must also do so when posting comments.”
Specifically MonaVie points out this FTC guideline:
“Example 8: An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices. Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product.
Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board.”
Analysis: As mentioned above MonaVie distributors must disclose their relationship and identify themselves. Whether they heed this guideline or choose to thumb their nose at the law seems to be one of his/her own person honor code. There doesn’t seem to be anything that would stop a distributor from using the “I am not a MonaVie distributor, but…” defense.
It should be noted that MonaVie headquarters is guilty of violating example 8 themselves so they should already be in trouble with the FTC if these guidelines apply retroactively. If not, at least they should now issue a statement that what they did was wrong.
MonaVie and the Distributor is Liable
The FTC guidelines say:
“Endorsements must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser. Endorsements may not imply, suggest, or express any representation that may be deceptive. Endorsers and Advertisers are liable for any false or deceptive statements or for failing to conspicuously disclose required information.”
MonaVie reminds its distributors:
“When one becomes a distributor for MonaVie, you are not just representing yourself, but also MonaVie. As such, under the new guidelines both can be held liable for possible violations. While many of our distributors have compelling stories or testimonials of benefits MonaVie products may have provided for them, as a distributor, these testimonials can be regarded as endorsements and are thus subject to the new guidelines.”
Analysis: A long time ago, I compared MonaVie to Napster. Both Distributors and MonaVie themselves claimed that they can’t be held accountable for the bad apples. Napster tried this defense when its users were stealing music. It didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now. MonaVie now seems to acknowledge this in light of the FTC guidelines. No longer can Larsen say “It’s next to impossible like herding cats.” The FTC can simply respond with, “find a new way of distributing your juice or don’t distribute it.”
FTC is going after “Health” Companies
MonaVie quotes Richard Cleland, FTC assistant director, division of advertising practices, from the Fast Company:
“‘I realize there are hundreds of thousands of bloggers out there. Enforcement on a case-by-case basis–that’s not even a realistic approach. There are other types of enforcement, surfing the Internet, finding companies that are making significant health claims about products, identifying where problems exist. We’d alert Web sites to potential problems and then invite them to contact us about questions of compliance. I don’t think it’s a matter of the enforcement side being weak but the most cost-effective tool in our arsenal. In this case, we’re going to rely more on voluntary compliance than prosecution. That’s the most likely source that we’ll be able to use to identify a problem, and if we do see a problem at a ground level and then ask the right questions, we’ll figure out why there’s a problem pretty quickly and go from there.’ Also, Cleland adds, ‘Competitors are very quick to turn people in. I’ve never suffered from a shortage of competitive complaints.‘”
(The bolding is emphasis from MonaVie.)
MonaVie follows with their own quote:
“In researching to obtain clarity on this subject, Cleland repeatedly cited ‘acai berry’ sites as making outrageous claims, and even hinted such sites might not receive a warning.”
Analysis: MonaVie bills themselves as one of the leaders in the acai berry business. It would be logical that if Cleland is citing the “acai berry” repeatedly, MonaVie would be one of the first companies in the FTC’s aim of fire. One has to question how long MonaVie has before the FTC takes action. It can’t be wise building a business on something so shaky.
What are the side effects of shipping fruit around the world?
From everything I’ve read acai used in MonaVie is freeze-dried and shipped from the Amazon to the United States (specifically Utah) for bottling. This requires a lot of energy – energy in the form of oil or coal. Creating the energy to ship the fruit, leaves pollutants behind, and can’t be considered a good way for the US to reduce their dependence on foreign oil.
Many health organizations are suggesting that it is better if we eat locally grown food rather than importing it.
Stumble
Reddit
Digg
Del.icio.us
Propeller
