It’s Not a Matter of Effort, it’s a Mathematical Certainty.

JS, thanks for posting this. I look forward to any potential edits and I hope this is helpful for those involved in Mona vie to see that they will hurt the vast majority of those they involve in this opportunity.

Mackwiz,

Let me first say I was never a distributor although I did have the plan explained to me. My basis for the above analysis was based on that, distributor comments, YouTube videos, and the Mona vie website. Let me also say the plan appears to be purposefully complicated to hide the horrible odds. Here I would ask the former distributors such as Humiliated and Rasheed to clarify my interpritation.

On to your questions…Yes, my understanding is people recruited by people you recruited would be part of your downline. If you recruited 20 who each recruited 20 that would be a downline of 400 people. If each spent $200 that would be $80,000 into the scheme. If the legs were perfectly balanced it would be $40,000 per leg which you would be paid 10% of the lesser leg, or $4,000 per month.

In this example since each of the 20 distributors you brought in each brought in 20 below them (10 on each side), those 20 broke even, as shown in the article. The other 380 distributors lost money. You are the only profitable one out of the $80,000 lost. This is my understanding of the plan. Comments or corrections welcome.

Jim, it is I who needs to thank you for submitting the article.

The article makes a lot of sense and shows the pyramid scheme.

I think you did a great job, Jim of answering Mackwiz’ question. I would like to stress the part of the question that was “in a fantasy world.” That’s where everyone in pyramid schemes live in. Obviously it is mathematically impossible to live in fantasy world very long… and such a 20-1 pyramid scheme out-numbers the Earth’s population very quickly… not that everyone on Earth is even able to purchase (China isn’t involved, many people can’t afford $45 juice, and most people don’t care to be juice salesmen).

Jim made an exceptional point that “the plan appears to be purposefully complicated to hide the horrible odds.” This might be why MonaVie is suing Zrii for its compensation plan. As Skeptoid says, “They are not in the fruit juice business; they are in the multilevel marketing business.”

I would appreciate it if someone wrote an article or two about this via Submit an article! link.

So let’s say this happens every month (put any time frame you want) – you are profitable in 3 months and the 20 you added are profitable the month after and those they put in the month after, etc. Of course, there are always going to be 95% “losers” that are just getting started but they have the possibility of being profitable in 3 months. It doesn’t seem all that bad. In any type of network marketing there has to be beginners – it’s the ones that stick it out and finish that make it profitable. Network Marketing is definitely not for everyone, just as professional athletics is not for everyone. It is possible, just don’t expect to get rich without putting in the work.

Jim – your correction is incorrect. Since each of them add 20 to each leg, their lesser leg would still be 20 (break even point in this example). Their greater leg would have quite a bit more and they could eventually get paid the additional as their lesser legs continue to grow since this would be “banked” to be paid as their lesser leg grows. It is quite possible to get paid for years to come from your efforts in the first weeks.

Jim, Rasheed,

Thank you for the info! I asked the question about compensation because I have heard from distributors how easy it is to network enough people. Looking at the math under the hood, it seems ridiculous to me. You have to hook 400 people to pull in 4 thousand (is that even after taxes and such? probably end up making less). Imagine if a had a startup juice company and I needed to hire 400 people to net a 4 thousand dollar profit per month.

“02 TOP RETAILERS BONUS
Moot again. I don’t know anyone who retailed.”

Indeed! That’s the MAIN reason why I got very skeptical about MonaVie at the tasting meeting before I even started research. If you can’t make any money retailing, what exactly are you selling, and why at such a high price?

MS,

I didn’t mean to give gambling a bad name! In all honesty, pulling the handle on a slot machine is much easier than restructuring your life around a juice product. What are the odds at blackjack? Surely better than a 98-99% loss rate.

Burned Out,

Very true. Like I said, only in a fantasy world one be able to recruit 20 people who in turn recruit 20, and all stay on the system. The odds of that are infintesimal.

Great post Jim.

It’s certainly a very unrealistic proposition and the winner in all of this first and foremost is clearly Monavie.

My own friend explored the possiblity of pursuing the business by signing up customers (despite the fact that he hadn’t been able to sign up a single customer in well over a year) and was confronted by the reality of just how modest the “potential” profits actually are (noting Monavie pays on the lesser leg and only 10% at that).

I know my friend’s sponsor (who is an Emerald) at one time had in the vicinity of 3500 people in his downline and in one particularly week was looking at bonuses in the vicinity of $250.00 (and this is GROSS revenue of course).

The IDS is further evidence of the likelihood of distributors not only not making any money, but losing money.

This is the stark reality of a non-retailing and recruitment driven MLM such as Monavie.

Dan, the problem with your logic is that it doesn’t change the equation. For you to be profitable, the other 19 people (or more) have to lose. This isn’t a month to month or time-frame thing. It is an overall thing. Anytime you get a paycheck, a bunch of people have to have lost money.

The “possibility” of the other 95% “losers” being profitable is just that a “possibility.” Remember that that the 95% would have to recruit another pile of people as well. Thus you get into the case of the 380 people mentioned in comment #3.

You should stop focusing on your odds and think about the rest and how it is mathematically impossible to sustain. Actually focus on your own odds because there is a 99.64% that you’ll lose money as well – http://www.juicescam.com/monavie-is-embarrassed-by-their-income-disclosure-statement-2/.

If you read comments on other articles you’d note that comments from distributors do respond. First time commenters’ comments are automatically put into moderation.

MonaVie Scam (if that’s your real name) – there will always be consumer’s if there are to be profit makers. The key difference is there is the possibility of making a profit with effort. Those that read this most likely “lost” when they purchased the very electronic device they are reading it on and the internet service as well. There are far less than 5% of the electronic device and internet purchasers profiting from both.

Jim – You are technically paid 5% of each leg which equates to 10% of the lesser leg. There will always be more people putting money in than there is to take out. That is true in any business. The key is that it is possible to make profit from the very business you once spent money on. I absolutely agree that this is a fact and I do disclose this with all potentially future distributors when showing the plan. I’m sure there are ones that don’t and may sour the field for the rest (just like in any business field.) Like I said previously, this type of business is not for everyone but it is the type of business for anyone that is willing to put forth the work and can give you results that no traditional business can provide.

Jim, the way that your article describes the compensation plan, is the way that it was explained to me. But, as Burned out says, it is never STATIC due to the extremely high drop out rate,and so you are constantly fighting to get people to “plug the holes” of your own sinking ship. Most months I was no where near even able to cover the cost of my own juice. But, that didn’t matter to me because I was SAVING money by not buying nutritional supplements or even having to buy fruits and veggies (yes, that was how it was ALSO explained to me.)

No one in my upline ever showed me their actual checks received, I was just always told what they made annually and I believed them. I realized after quitting that they were just quoting the IDs number to people because that is what they ought to have been making based on their “level”. I just know that they are ALL financially struggling now and that they are making no where near what the IDs states.

Would it have been nice to make more money? Absolutely. I was told that Monavie would be in every fridge in North America, just like bottled water, it would practically sell itself. Really? Most people that I approached had a visible, negative physical reaction as soon as I said that they couldn’t buy it in the store. When I think back, the people that started on the “juice” were people that completely trusted me, and they got people that completely trusted them involved and so on.

Dan (if that is your real name) what the hell are you talking about? What kind of argument is that? It is flawed on so many levels. I didn’t buy my computer & internet service in order to make money. I bought it to communicate and to obtain information quickly. Actually, if you look at it that way, it HAS saved me about $160 a month on piss juice because I found these sites! My computer & monthly internet fee are MORE then covered! In addition, I bought it from an extremely reputable company who didn’t lie to me about it’s capabilities.

You say that you tell the truth about the plan to your “customers”. Do you also tell the truth about the fact that the juice has very little nutrition for the price (one serving of fruit a day)? Do you tell them to do their “due dilligence” and thoroughly research the product and company (and not by directing them to the Corporate web site)?

I recently bought a pricey couch. The economy is suffering and likely so was the sales person. The sales person told me that the couch manufacturer was very reputable and it was an excellent quality couch. He then told me to go home and research them. He also said “sleep on it, the couch is not going anywhere”. It was clear that he wanted me to be comfortable with my decision. I DID research it on this alleged money pit called my computer and I also asked around at work. He told the truth and I bought the expensive couch, eyes wide open. THAT is how a scrupulous salesperson/business person conducts themselves.

You see, if there was a product/company I truly believed in, I would have no problem telling someone to do their research and make sure they are completely comfortable with becoming involved. That is the RIGHT thing to to. But, my guess is you try to get them to sign up before they are out the door at the first tasting they attend, correct?

I know that you were asked to comment on the “math” of this “business but I can’t help but make this last comment. This is not about selling poor quality & significantly overpriced juice. The only way that the “profit makers” in your “business” profit are when distributorships are sold and if I recall, that makes this a PYRAMID scheme and ILLEGAL. Ergo, your sentence should read there will always be “victims” as long as there are “scammers”.

Also, the IDS is severely flawed.

Anyone who gets 2,000 PV in a single week will be a Bronze. For that week. That person makes it onto the IDS. For the rest of the 3 weeks, he gets nothing.

So yes, he makes $200 in a week. But does he make $200 weekly? No. He makes $200 that month because he has no more PV flowing in his legs in the other months.

Dan it’s true that when someone buys a product they’re spending money that most likely they won’t make a return on. The difference is that When I bought my computer nobody tried to recruit me into selling more computers. It was a one time cost.

While the average person may not make financial gain from the perchance of a computer the product pays for it’s self in usefulness. For a few hundred dollars I have a product that is not only useful but has lasted for years.

Internet service is a recurring cost but again there is a usefulness factor to consider. For less than $50 a month everyone in my house can use the internet for school, work, entertainment etc.

It’s already been proven that Monavie lacks nutrition so it isn’t very useful. A business where it’s almost certain that you’re going to lose isn’t either.

You said ” there will always be consumer’s if there are to be profit makers. The key difference is there is the possibility of making a profit with effort.”

A consumer is a customer not a distributor.

When I bought my computer I knew that I would be spending a significant amount of money. No matter how much I promote the product the computer company isn’t going to pay me for it. I have no illusions that they will. I’m simply a customer.

When a distributer signs up it’s with the intention to do business. Nobody signs up with the intent to spend thousands of dollars a year on product with an extremely small chance that they’ll break even.

I saw one of the references to Bronze at 2000 Points, that is 4000 total or 40 cases or about $6000 in one week of sales paying the dist $200 plus the other commisions which are minimal and generally non recuring, not factoring in the 95/90 % drop out rate, profit/power leg balencing act that never works in the real world.

That is for one week, thus to be a solid bronze it would take 160 cases evenly balanced for a total or slightly over $24,000 per monthly sales or right at $312,000 in annual sales to make him/her a before expenses income of about munimum wage, factor in expenses, even the lowets level of the 2% “Top earners” is losing money, lots of it.

Dan said, “I don’t believe (and this is just my opinion – I’m sure others will disagree) that you can call the 20 people “failures” just because they are not profitable yet.”

The concerning part about that quote is the word “yet” at the end. If you read the article they will never be profitable. Mathematically, they cant be because for them to be profitable, they have to put another 20 people below them. So you see, when one of those “failures” becomes profitable, that person has created a new set of 20 more “failures.”

I think the point of this article is that these “failures” are necessary with the way the system is designed. There was a appropriate analogy that in a poker game of world ranked players, there is going to be one winner and a bunch of losers… it doesn’t matter how good those players are. Knowing that there has be 20 failures for every success, it underscores why a humanitarian should root for no MonaVie successes… it hurts too many in a negative way.

Dan said: “I don’t believe (and this is just my opinion – I’m sure others will disagree) that you can call the 20 people “failures” just because they are not profitable yet. It takes many “traditional” businesses years before they make their first profit and I wouldn’t consider them failures. I have a friend who recently opened a restaurant and his hope is to make his first profit in year 3.”

There are so many flaws to the logic underlying that comment, but allow me to focus on the most glaring examples — banking on a 3-year time horizon for profitability is extremely ill-advised when the company on which it is dependent is illegally marekting their products and could be closed by the FDA tomorrow. The 3 years invested will be a complete and utter waste except for the company and the upline that reaped the profits of your unrewarded labor. Bearing in mind that Dallin Larsen’s diet aid venture with Monarach went belly up within a year or so, and his venture immediately before that (Dynamic Essentials/Royal Tongan Limu) went from start to finish (an untimely demise at the hands of the FDA) in about 2 years. Dallin Larsen had hyped Limu as the “next Microsoft” just like he did with Monavie.

So banking on profitability (and profitability to what extent you did not specify) within 3 years with Monavie takes the poker metaphor a step further. Not only is the venture akin to being the worst poker player at a table of sharks, but also playing for a jackpot that, in the unlikely event you do win, can only be collected (concevably) 3 years later, assuming that the guys who were holding the money for you can still be located.

If you think that this represents a good opportunity for anyone other than the schemers and fraud artists that are running the game, then I have to seriously question whether you have one iota of business accumen or even commonsense.

BTW, you Monavie distributors constantly resort to using strained analogies that begin with “I have a friend who…”. In your case, I have to seriously question whether you actually do have such a friend who opened a restaurant and is planning on being profitable in 3 years. You don’t really do you? You’re just reciting more BS from Monavie’s lame ass playbook. You’re welcome to prove me wrong by providing the name of your friend and the restaurant — AFTER you provide your name and Monavie distributor ID#, as required by that contract you signed and agreed to honor. The fact that you have not done so yet, even after being asked several times, already speaks volumes about your integrity (or lack thereof).

On that basis, you’re definitely Monavie material son. Astonishingly naive, enthusiastic about throwing money into a pyramid scheme with no payoff, and lacking in integrity.

Dan, who gets paid to drink MonaVie? Not many people. So you can’t give that Google example.

I hope that Dan’s logic isn’t that you should work hard to get paid to consume extremely expensive juice. Looking at the IDS, people have to work 300 a hours a year just to break even with their juice costs… and these are the top 13% who are fortunate enough to make money at all.

Breaking that down, that’s 300 hours of work for roughly 1460 ounces of juice (approximately 4 ounces a day for 365 days). To get that many ounces of V8 Fusion Acai Berry, you need to buy 32 bottles at around $4 a bottle each or $128 for the year. So these people who are the top 13% most successful in MonaVie could switch to V8 Fusion, spend $128 for the year, and save themselves 300 hours of work. It sounds like these people are defending working for a $0.43 an hour value in product.

In order to reward themselves with that “incredible opportunity”, these people are willing to live with the guilt of making 19 other people lose money. Wow, ouch!

Dan, Rasheed and Humiliated,

Thank you all for your imput regarding the Mona vie opportunity. We all seem to be in agreement that distributors are paid 10% on the lesser leg, and that for each person who is profitable 20 people must lose money to the scheme.

Dan, would you agree that it is possible for your friends restaurant and all the restaurants in your geographic area to all be profitable? There is no rule of math stating 95% of restaurants must fail. But it is a mathematical certainty that 95% of all Mona vie distributors must fail regardless of effort or system as we agreed. There is no requirement for 20 other restaurants to fail in order for your friends to be successful as we agreed is the case in Mona vie. Does this make sense?

If you are a distributor, ask your upline about the math of this scheme. We can argue till we are blue in the face whether the juice provides energy or helps your body support a healthy immune system or whatever but I don’t think we can disagree on the math of the opportunity. The next time you are in a room with 20 distributors know that on average, only one of you can be profitable. If more than one of you are profitable, then there is a whole other room of 20 people that will waste their time and hard earned money chasing this dream. Ask to see your uplines downline and ask them which 5 out of 100 will turn a profit.

Jim said: “And Dan, in my opinion simply showing the IDS is not honestly disclosing the odds, especially when the fact that 87% earn nothing is in the fine print below. My question was shouldn’t the 95% gauranteed failure rate be disclosed. The IDS does not disclose this and I believe most good people knowing this fact would pass on the opportunity and not involve friends and family in a scheme where the probability of financial loss is so high.”

And in fact, we’ve seen repeatedly that they try to misrepresent the IDS and downplay its significance (eg, lying by saying that the data include mostly people who are only wholesale customers). What they use the IDS for is to point out that there are a few people that make a lot of money; the downside gets purposely underplayed, naturally. It’s a quick flash of the IDS…”see these guys make millions”…followed by a quick cut to the brochure with the couple standing in front of an exotic sports car/yacht/jet/palm trees etc.

Dan states “If everyone that used Google had the opportunity to get paid for using it and recruiting others to do the same, I think you would find similar results…”

Dan, what continues to be notably absent from your description of business is any reference of selling fruit juice to customers. However, I don’t think anyone’s surprised that you’re not addressing this aspect of the business – if you can sell Monavie to genuine customers (i.e those NOT pursuing the opportunity) at the given price of 10x higher than any other fruit juice on the market, you could no doubt sell ice to the Eskimos.

What you’re describing is a pyramid scheme – an unsustainable and fraudulent system where the focus isn’t on selling and earning the majority of profits from non-participants, but rather an endless chain of recruitment where the profits being derived are through the participants themselves whose investments and purchases represent the revenue, the majority of which is transferred to those ranked the highest and who got in earliest. Such schemes are considered fraudulent because they leave the majority of the participants (as much as 99% or greater) at the bottom where no profits are being made.

So yes, of course the outcome is going be the same – greater than 99% losses.

The below attached link is one of my favourites in explaining the pyramid math and why your failure in Monavie is pre-determined from the onset. You’d be doing yourself and anyone who you contemplate recruiting into this abysmal venture a huge service by reading it thoroughly and considering its contents.
http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/PSAMain/resources/nonretail.html

Actually, I believe I was mistaken on the binary (aka team) commissions. The binary structure does not necessarily entail that 20 people per person MUST lose money for that one person to gain money. Let me explain.

Let’s say someone recruits 20 people, 10 in each leg. He breaks even. So now there are two people directly below that guy, each with 9 people in their first legs. Those first two people actually need 1 more in their first leg and 10 more in their second leg in order to break even. So 11 people for the first level of recruits to break even. However, the number never goes below 10. The number will always be between 10 and 30 (if you’re on 300 PV autoship).

So does that make the odds better? Sure, it does, but that’s like taking 2 bullets out of a previously 4-slot-loaded revolver and playing Russian roulette. Just because it’s better, doesn’t make it great.

An interesting thing to note is that if one sells 8 cases per month through preferred customers, they will earn just about enough to pay for 200 PV autoship. Typically that’s 8 people, or maybe 4 couples.

But no one ever does that for some reason. I wonder why.

Lets back the juice train up here with Dan.

Dan says-
“The key difference is there is the possibility of making a profit with effort. Those that read this most likely “lost” when they purchased the very electronic device they are reading it on and the internet service as well.”

Ahhhh yes, and to clarify, the good ol’ “effort” line and infamous line of how everyone “lost” when investing their money elsewhere.

My god, …the only thing that comes to my mind here, is a nightmare flashback of my Team days. These lines are the oldest in the book that Team has to offer. Interesting how a mentor says, that the effort is oh so good when in, but when finally seeing the truth behind all the legal problems, lies, and deception, we all of a sudden become the bottom feeders, or some competitor of Team and Mona Vie…NOW, we’ve become the “failures/loosers”. It’s quite clear how “Team” works.

Unfortunately, I see distributors like him as nothing more than that little hopeless, squeaky chew toy in the back of a pitbull’s chain-linked, fenced-in backyard.

By “real water” above, I meant “regular water”. Ionizied water is of course, not fake water.

What in the hell are these companies doing????

It’s WATER for gods sake!

All to make a shallow, dishonest buck.

Brian Dunning’s take:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4139

Rasheed said: “Unfortunately, I see distributors like him as nothing more than that little hopeless, squeaky chew toy in the back of a pitbull’s chain-linked, fenced-in backyard.”

Poetry! I’m so proud of you it makes me misty eyed.

Aussie, thanks for the link you posted in comment 44. I had read that a couple times over the years and I agree it is one of the best analysis of these schemes. I actually was looking for that link when I wrote the article.

If anybody wanting a thorough understanding of what the Mona vie business is really all about should take the time to read the entire paper. You don’t need to know anything about juice or wellness because Mona vie is not a juice company, it’s a marketing company.

For those who think that this is just more “hating”, this article was written in 2004 which is before mona vie was foundedI believe. It’s amazing how the outline of these schemes is followed perfectly in Mona vie. It’s almost like reading the company bussiness plan or marketing plan. If you can read this article and still not see what Mona vie and all these other endless recruitment schemes are all about, and the GAURANTEED losses to almost everybody then I don’t know if there is any hope for you.

http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/PSAMain/resources/nonretail.html

Hey it’s David Wood, the recruiting legend! You probably don’t know who I am, but you and Ray Higdon are awesome. I think I’m in your downline anyway, somewhere along the line.

Anyway, a person shouldn’t need to buy a product in order to be around the people involved. Maybe pay for a ticket to a meeting yes, but not buy a $130 case of juice.

With MonaVie, the “value” people get from the product is very negligible and is more based on pseudoscience. There are many articles on this site that attest to that, read the article on the placebo effect. Many renown scientist speak against acai scams (and sometimes even MonaVie).

Having consumers is fine, with the company we rep, our product is actually competitive. There are customers who buy our product because they want it, and not buy into the whole business side of it.

With MonaVie, it’s rare to find someone who would buy the juice and not get into the business. I know that for a fact because I used to be in MonaVie.

With NM in general, if the product is competitive and people would be willing to buy it, that’s fine. I for one wouldn’t mind not making money in the company we’re in because I like our product. The income is just a bonus.

With MonaVie, even though I left almost 6 months ago, I still have cases of juice in my kitchen, which are all probably expired and even if they weren’t, I wouldn’t be able to get anything for them (over $200 of juice in my kitchen).

Not only that, but the juice provided no real benefit to my health. I wasn’t aware that 2 oz of juice could cure cancer and do all these awesome things for a person and not be verified by the FDA.

If you just want to buy the product, you should choose to become a preferred customer, not sign a distributor agreement. This article is not intended for those who just want to buy the product. If you want to be around the people involved invite them over to your poker night, for a BBQ, or to play tiddlywinks.

Thus I think the article is quite accurate – there is no flawed assumption. I’m not assuming that there’s no value in the product itself. Almost every product has “some” value. However, given that we know the product lacks nutrition and at two ounces, it doesn’t quench thirst, one would be hard pressed to claim that the product had value.

Most of your downline may be consumers, but you still need to make sure that retail sales are the majority of your income source or else you risk running afoul of the FTC’s pyramid schemes. As for it being the case with any company, I went to the grocery store and bought some juice today. I have no idea if the cashier drinks the same juice. I know she didn’t make a commission on selling me the juice. There were no incentives for her to make any illegal claims about juice. Overall, it was a good experience. MonaVie should try it. If their product is any good, it would open it up to a greater number of markets and generate more profits. However, if the product isn’t all that good, it makes sense that they’d try to wrap it up in an illegal pyramid scheme to make money.

Congrats on being lucky. Rather than be vague about being in MLM, why not tell us which one you are in?

Hey Dave,

You said: I think that there is another flaw in the argument, too – and that’s thinking that the FTC is right at all to regulate business like this with these stupid rules – if someone wants to buy into a scam, do we treat them as a child and say ‘no, bad boy!’ ?

1) We are in no position to say whether or not the FTC is “right” or not, the fact is that if we disobey laws, there will be consequences. Just because the law is not always right does not mean that it’s okay to break those laws. We have been given the privilege to live in this country, the least we can do is abide by the laws that govern this country.

Have you ever been scammed on Craigslist, Dave? Consumer fraud is rampant there. A couple years ago I was looking for a private tutoring job at CL, and a gentleman wanted me to tutor his daughter in math for a month and he’d pay me $2000 to cover transportation and fees. He said “I’ll give you my next paycheck instead, and you can just wire over what you don’t want.”

Turns out I was being scammed. Are you saying it’s wrong to make it illegal to scam people like this? To let people learn from the mistake of misleading people?

The books, CDs, functions, etc, are not one and the same with the product that MonaVie sells. I’ll not address the training system because that’s just information and the value is in the eye of the beholder, but look at MonaVie selling overpriced juice. If someone can show WHY exactly MonaVie, priced at $45 per 25 oz bottle, is better than V8 Splash or V8 Fusion, then there’d be a case. Scientifically though, there is nothing that shows MonaVie to be better. Just one “doctor” who says that it’s really good.

I don’t know much about Cash gifting so I can’t say much about the matter. But just because it’s not illegal does not make it ethical.

2) This is a website about MonaVie, not McDonalds. I think everyone knows that McDonalds is bad for them, they just eat at the fast food restaurants out of convenience. Also, I don’t think McDonalds has ever really LIED about their products in order to sell. They just have a TV ad with some people eating them, and that’s about it. They don’t say, “McDonalds will cure your cancer!” or “Lower your cholesterol!” or anything like that. McDonalds does what it is advertised to do: satiate hunger. MonaVie? Not as much.

Using implications and misleading advertising is unethical, and some cities are actually banning the inclusion of toys with Happy Meals. But illegal? No. McDonalds does not do anything illegal, that I know of. MonaVie? How about uneducated salesmen talking about the science about the juice when they can’t even tell me what the hell “resveratrol” does? Most of MonaVie’s reps do not know what the product is, and they sell it based off of what their upline has told them, which is often wrong. I was sold on MonaVie because they said it made your 13 servings of fruits in a day (in just 4 oz), cured x and x, etc… and none of this was substantiated; in fact, it was all flat-out wrong.

MonaVie in the scheme of things will not change much. But it’s not like there are two ultimatums: a person can either buy MonaVie or watch porn/go to McDonalds. I do know for a fact that people who buy MonaVie also go to McDonalds/Burger King and may even watch porn. I don’t know. But there is no ultimatum.

So why NOT protect people from consumer fraud?

Rasheed

[Note, I was composing this as David was replying back to Rasheed and did not see that response when posting this. I then decided to respond to David's comments to Rasheed in line. Sorry for the temporal confusion.]

David said,

Vogel, the article wasn’t about mathematics only – it was about the validity of the product (in the sense that, in order for the people to be losing money – the product would have to be worth nothing).

This is not entirely true. If we were to take a product with a known, agreed-upon value like say a hundred dollar bill and run the same system the people would still be losing money if you have to recruit between 10-30 people to make your hundred dollar bill back. This does not mean that the hundred dollar has no value. You could do this for any product of any value. Substitute Honda Civics. If you have to get 20 other people to buy Honda Civics to pay for your own it is a mathematical certainty that people will lose money.

However, this gets especially bad in the case of MonaVie where you have to convince people to buy the equivalent of a $200,000 Honda Civic.

David said,

I think that there is another flaw in the argument, too – and that’s thinking that the FTC is right at all to regulate business like this with these stupid rules – if someone wants to buy into a scam, do we treat them as a child and say ‘no, bad boy!’ ?

Why don’t we let Wikipedia’s opening paragraph about the FTC handle that one, “The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent agency of the United States government, established in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act. Its principal mission is the promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention of what regulators perceive to be harmfully anti-competitive business practices, such as coercive monopoly.”

You aren’t seriously going to question the value of Consumer Protection? It is something that is enforced in many, many countries. I invite you to look at the number of countries that prohibit Pyramid schemes. I want to emphasize Rasheed’s wise words above about following the laws that govern this country. I suggest that if you find the FTC’s rules “stupid”, you relocate your business to a section of the world that is not bound by such rules. The FTC sets the rules, if you don’t want to play by them, either leave or quit playing.

David said,

As far as me actually being ‘lucky’ it was half in jest – I worked my ass off to learn how to sell and recruit, and it took me a massive amount of energy and effort to get where I am today, and I probably work harder than anyone else in my company and I’m proud of that, and because of the sheer force of my will and effort, I’m the #1 personal recruiter there – my company is The Numis Network, since you asked.

Excellent. Good job. However, a great point was made in the article above (or one of the comments) that essentially everyone is playing poker. One person is going to make their money back and the other 20 are going to lose their money (at least with MonaVie’s compensation plan, I can’t speak to Numis’). This happens even if you have a game with the top 20 poker players in the world. It’s the math of how it works. So I give you credit for honing your skills and working hard to be the best poker player you can be. However, that simply means that you’ve indirectly lead many, many more people to much greater financial losses than your gains.

Also, it’s shame that you have to be associated with the Numis Network. I have a great story about an interaction with one of your previous members here: http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/lifevantage-protandim-scam/.

David said,

“Why not let him do what he wants? If someone feels like they’re getting ‘scammed’ why not quit and request a refund and stop buying stuff they don’t want? Is America too retarded to make decisions for themselves?”

This is a great question and one that has been answered many times before. You might want to read the comments from “Humiliated” here. She was with MonaVie for 1.5 years (I think). She was lied to about the value of the product by her upline. Websites like this didn’t exist to expose these lies. At one point, she got wise and took the juice to some unbiased nutritionists and had them assess the value of the juice. They told her what we now know, the juice has almost zero nutritional value. She thought she was getting Ferrari quality, when it turned out to be Tata Nano quality. Because it is a juice, this couldn’t be objectively observed. She was scammed. She quit. Do you think MonaVie gave a refund for the $3000 (I’m estimating) in juice that she bought? No.

You said, “Stop buying stuff they don’t want.” Are you serious?!?! People aren’t allowed to not buy the stuff if they want to be in the business and “reach their dreams.”

Before you ask if America is too retarded to make decisions for themselves, you should study the nature of cults. I recommend watching this video that dates back to 2005 around the time MonaVie was started. As you watch it, you can almost match up every technique with MonaVie’s recruiting process. If you really want to know how smart America is to make decisions for themselves, put MonaVie on store shelves at its retail price and let’s see how it sells. Let’s take away the mind control, illegal pyramid scheme, poor business opportunity false billed as being great, and their fraudalent charity.

Rasheed made many great points about McDonalds. I would love to see your answer to Rasheed’s question, “So why NOT protect people from consumer fraud?” You just want to legally scam people? This doesn’t show any character on your part.

I see that you came from reading about Orrin Woodward. It makes sense why you’d go on with your ridiculous comments about “income tax scams.” I’m to believe that you’ve never driven on paved road paid for by income taxes. You do have an alternative to paying income taxes. Make your income in another country without income tax. Drop me a line about how you are enjoying your right to freedom and liberty there.

You underestimate the problem of MonaVie. It isn’t just a few dollars. A family of four wastes $5000 a year on the juice. You invest that over 20 years or so and you are looking at a pretty sizable chunk of change. At just 7% interest that $5000 from the first year becomes more than $19,000 in the 20th year. We don’t have to look at the 2nd, 3rd, 4th years of spending $5000 to see that this number can quickly grow to be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think porn or the occasional McDonalds’ trip (which does have some healthy food by the way) impacts a family as much as losing a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

However, this website isn’t a competition to find out the worst things to people. Its purpose is to point out the problems with MonaVie and educate people about the harm it is doing. You are welcome to go ahead and start your anti-McDonalds, anti-porn, anti-income tax blogs. Email me the link to them and if I’m interested I’ll go comment about those topics there. I promise you that I won’t come there and talk about MonaVie. I wouldn’t be so rude as to try to change the topic to something else like you tried to do here.

“Rasheed made many great points about McDonalds. I would love to see your answer to Rasheed’s question, “So why NOT protect people from consumer fraud?” You just want to legally scam people? This doesn’t show any character on your part.”

I simply disagree that Monavie, or Network Marketing in general is scamming people in any way – I’ve had great value added to my life from this industry even before I made money at it.

[Editor's Response: You need to connect with the hundreds that have commented here explaining the lies they were told. You should look at websites of high-level distributors like Mitch Biggs who make illegal medical claims. You can disagree that people are being scammed, but it is like holding the opinion that McDonalds Double Quarterpounders are healthy - it doesn't make any sense. As for the industry's value on your life, it isn't relevant. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's pyramid scam had a positive effect on his life.]

“You said, “Stop buying stuff they don’t want.” Are you serious?!?! People aren’t allowed to not buy the stuff if they want to be in the business and “reach their dreams.””

That’s ridiculous – MLM is the easiest business in the world to quit – you just stop ordering and admit that it’s not for you. (unless Monavie is doing something that I’m not aware of )

[Editor's Response: You are talking about a completely different thing, quitting an MLM business. The conversation was that people can stop buying stuff they don't want. It is written to the contracts of most MLMs that to participate in the MLM part of the business they must be on auto-ship. They can't stop buying while they are working the business "opportunity." Of course anyone can quit MLM all-together, but then the Orrin Woodward's of the world chastise you for being a failure and a quitter... just like a cult does if you try to leave.]

“This is not entirely true. If we were to take a product with a known, agreed-upon value like say a hundred dollar bill and run the same system the people would still be losing money if you have to recruit between 10-30 people to make your hundred dollar bill back. This does not mean that the hundred dollar has no value. You could do this for any product of any value. Substitute Honda Civics. If you have to get 20 other people to buy Honda Civics to pay for your own it is a mathematical certainty that people will lose money.”

Well, sure – but if someone buys the Honda from a honda dealer – they still lose the same money? What’s the point?

If THE ONLY REASON they got in was to make a profit, and they never used the product, I could catch your point – but they get value from the product, either perceived or real, that money is not a business expense, it’s a purchase of a product.

[Editor's Response: This is a ridiculous statement. I'll use a quote from the FTC to prove my point: "Some schemes may purport to sell a product, but they often simply use the product to hide their pyramid structure."

How do you differentiate the people who in the business to make a profit from those that are in it for purchasing product? Easy... Decouple them. You can already purchase the product without the business via the preferred customer program. Now MonaVie needs to allow people to earn the MLM-style commissions without being on auto-ship.]

“You underestimate the problem of MonaVie. It isn’t just a few dollars. A family of four wastes $5000 a year on the juice. You invest that over 20 years or so and you are looking at a pretty sizable chunk of change. At just 7% interest that $5000 from the first year becomes more than $19,000 in the 20th year. We don’t have to look at the 2nd, 3rd, 4th years of spending $5000 to see that this number can quickly grow to be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think porn or the occasional McDonalds’ trip (which does have some healthy food by the way) impacts a family as much as losing a couple of hundred thousand dollars. ”

I gotcha – but one thing – you’re making the same kind of claims with this statement that you’re criticizing Monavie reps for – making an assumption of a 7% return. This is the nature not just of Monavie – but of bad habits. A 7% return isn’t guaranteed even if a family invests diligently.

[Editor's Response: The 7% return was a reasonable example to illustrate the value of compound interest. If you were to put the money in a FDIC insured bank (i.e. guaranteed), $5000 a year still adds up to $100,000. MonaVie reps don't make reasonable examples which pitching the product. Glad that you conceded the point that it is a very, very big issue though.]

“However, this website isn’t a competition to find out the worst things to people. Its purpose is to point out the problems with MonaVie and educate people about the harm it is doing. You are welcome to go ahead and start your anti-McDonalds, anti-porn, anti-income tax blogs. Email me the link to them and if I’m interested I’ll go comment about those topics there. I promise you that I won’t come there and talk about MonaVie. I wouldn’t be so rude as to try to change the topic to something else like you tried to do here.”

If you look at my comments, they’re not rude – they’re presenting an alternative side of an argument, much like you’re doing in your post.

[Editor's Response: I didn't say your comments were rude in nature. I said that it would be rude to try to change the topic to other products in an attempt to pass the buck. Even if you did miraculously find a non-MLM company that scams people like MonaVie, it wouldn't justify MonaVie. Two wrongs wouldn't make a right.]

You feel like Monavie is a scam and are presenting your view, I think the product may or may not have value since I don’t buy, sell or endorse it, and still don’t think it’s a scam because people can choose to not join, or do something else with their life.

[Editor's Response: This is the laughable Orrin Woodward view that I debunked here: http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/orrin-woodward-scams-monavie-team-lies/. A scam is not defined by whether there is force. Being allowed to quit does not make it not a scam. I encourage you to read that article and familiarize yourself with the definition of "scam" that I quoted from the dictionary there.]

If someone feels ‘controlled’ to the point where they feel like they can’t make decisions, they should definitely quit and do something else.

[Editor's Response: WOW. In one short sentence you came up with with a bunch of idiotic statements. First, many people don't "feel controlled" because that's the nature of the brainwashing. If you are brainwashed to the point where you can't make decisions, you obviously can't make the decision to quit. I encourage you to read this article: http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/my-friend-is-brainwashed-by-get-rich-quick-schemes-help/. Clearly the person, Faith, should quit and do something else, but she has been brainwashed into throwing good money after bad in an effort to recoup her investment.]

You also mentioned (getting a bit out of order because it’s late and I’m tired):

“So I give you credit for honing your skills and working hard to be the best poker player you can be. However, that simply means that you’ve indirectly lead many, many more people to much greater financial losses than your gains.”

Again, this goes back to my original, and only objection to this whole concept – if people are paying for a product, they’re getting the value of the product, not losing money investing.

If the income is being generated from product being sold either to customers or distributors and it’s being consumed/used/utilized – then technically the only money someone is ‘losing’ is the distributor fee if the product adds value.

[Editor's Response: And this goes back to the actual value of the product, which we've established is next to none. It might as well be pocket lint. I mentioned this already above, but if you don't believe me, listen to your own Numis distributor friend Rasheed. They mark up the product 20x on illegal health claims and lies. You might want to read my article on Warren Buffett and Pampered Chef. It is easy to quantify the value of the product that people are getting. It is a reasonable value. So if you are coming from it from a Numis (coin selling) or Pampered Chef (cookware) point of view, you must realize that it is very different from MonaVie. I've said it before, if MonaVie prices the product around that of its competitors like V8 Fusion Acai Berry or Tropicana Pure, I wouldn't mind the product as much. Then you could argue that people are getting "fair value" for their money, not just "some value." As I said before pocket lint has qualifies as being a product with "value", let's not charge $20 for it an pretend its normal.]

NOW – that’s where I can’t vouch personally here for Monavie – since I don’t use or endorse the product in any way, but was my original objection (that and the validity of the FTC reasoning)

As far as myself – I live in another country and love it! (Costa Rica). I pay the local taxes here but you know what? I have to pay USA income taxes to support these organizations because I’m a citizen, and I’ll tell you from personal experience, I like it here a lot better than anywhere else – I flew my wife’s family down for Christmas and they say the same :)

[Editor's Response: Again, you have the choice to renounce your citizenship and stop doing business in the US. I doubt that the US is going to send anyone to Costa Rica looking for you. In the meantime, your website lists an Alaska mailing address. You have the choice, you just pretend you do not.]

I wasn’t bringing up ‘taxes’ for any other purpose than comparing it with the FTC, and that IS on topic to the discussion.

Does the FTC protect consumers? Does the FDA protect the food? Personally, I think it makes all of this stuff more expensive and with-holds scientific advancement, and YES – THAT IS ON TOPIC.

(not trying to be rude – hear out the alternative view here :) )

I prefaced my FTC statement by saying that I play by the rules – why are you attacking me for that? Just because I disagree that the rules are valid don’t mean I don’t abide by them, it means I think that they’re full of it, and I think they hurt business, not just MLM but all small business – creating nonsensical rules isn’t a solution to the problem of people losing money on stuff – lack of good ability to make correct personal decisions is.

I say – empower people to choose their own path and let them suffer from, or profit from the consequences, either good or bad.

That’s why I love the concept of Free Enterprise – it gives me the freedom to fail and the freedom to succeed – combined with the power to choose my own path, whether it’s MLM/Direct Sales or being a Doctor – the choice is mine, and mine alone to make.

[Editor's Response: The problem with this view is that it denounces Consumer Protection. It's not even rationale to argue that there should be no consumer protection. You chose to live in Costa Rica, yet they still have consumer protection laws there.

Your concept of "free enterprise" would also seem to apply to pickpockets. If I want to choose my path as a pickpocket that choice should be mine and mine alone to make. I saw empower people with the freedom to pickpocket others and let my marks suffer from the consequences of not protecting their valuables. The police, like the FTC, shouldn't make nonsensical rules to protect my marks.]

That’s why I don’t get the problem you’re raising – I’m certainly not better than these ‘poor people’, I spent more than I made my first go around in MLM, too – but that education has wound up making me more money than the rest of my family combined in all of their respective professions.

Is that typical? Nope – did I work like hell for it? Of course – and I’m not better than any of my family by those results, but my lifestyle is better by a long shot.

[Editor's Response: Again, it is great that you made this money. As you say, it isn't typical - hence the point of this article about the mathematical certainty that many people MUST lose money for you to make money. For you to make this money (at least in MonaVie, I can't address Numis), others lost many times more than what you made. People shouldn't be carrying this "success" as a badge of honor, but a badge of shame. Using my example above, someone making this money in MonaVie is claiming to be a tremendous pick-pocketer. It's like saying, "Hey, I robbed 20 people today. I made more money than my family combined and I worked like hell for it." That doesn't make it right.]

That’s why I’m fascinated by this discussion by both sides, and I think that calling me rude is the wrong choice of words – I’m just not going to agree with with it – just like I could never convince you to agree with me.

[Editor's Response: I was calling the act of bringing in of external topics like income taxes, McDonalds, etc. rude. I think you've been quite civil and polite in your discussion.]

I wouldn’t try, either. But you still haven’t addressed the two concerns with the original point:

1. Philosophically – is the ruling of the FTC valid at all, and is it right to give them the power to lord over entrepreneurs like they do and regulate us to death? (Personally, I could pay all of my employees more, hire more people, expand my businesses faster, etc if I was taxed and regulated less, and create more jobs and prosperity in the economy)

I don’t care if the ‘rule’ says such and such – of course I follow it, I’m not stupid – I’m saying is it right – and is it the place of so few to have such great power.

[Editor's Response: I thought I had addressed this. Yes it is correct to give the FTC this power. It is a consumer protection agency and I think that civilized countries typically agree that consumer protection is a good thing. It is also important to note that the FTC must go to court to prove a pyramid scheme as it did with Nexgen. So it isn't just the FTC alone, but the US judicial system. There is a system of checks and balance that applies even to the FTC.

As far as "so few having such great power", this government website says that it had 1000 employees in 1999. In contrast, there are 535 members of congress who have a lot more power. I'm guessing that even in Costa Rica and just about every other country, you could find a group of a 1000 government officials who have even more power than FTC. So towards your question of "is it right"? It seems like the world as a whole agrees it is.]

2. Why are people ‘losing money’ when they’re buying the figurative Honda, when they wouldn’t lose money at a honda dealership? Because now they’re in a business? They’re buying a product to use for that money – not an expense – regardless of the perceived value. People pay a premium for things all the time and no one seems to care.

[Editor's Response: I think Rasheed answered this question quite well in the next comment. If you still have difficulties on this, please explain more specifically what they are and I'll try to address them.]

The only other thing I would mention is I apologize about the flaky person from my company – I certainly don’t represent them, which is why I didn’t mention my company in the first place – I thought you’d immediately come up with a finger to point at someone or something negative that was non-related to me.

[Editor's Response: One of the reasons that makes the person flaky is that they moved to a whole new MLM. Suddenly the product of Numis coins that he was trying to sell me on a week ago was no good and this Protandim Fountain of Youth is where it is at. It is hard to trust a person like that. Now I don't know about your story, but you did say that your first MLM venture didn't go so well. I did read that you were involved with Amway, so I am guessing you are flaky MLM switcher as well. You mentioned Orrin Woodward, and he's also a MLM switcher. You can see the whole line with him and Chris Brady moving from Amway to MonaVie.

It's very flaky that people move from one MLM to another. It's flaky that one person couldn't sell both coins and Fountain of Youth pills when the products don't compete. If anything people should be in multiple MLMs because, as salesmen, it increases your chances of making a sale. "You don't like coin collecting? Cool, let me show you this juice or this cookware."

Unfortunately, almost all MLMs are anti-free enterprise and make distributors sign agreements not to work with other MLM companies even when their products don't compete against each other. It's just shady.]

Anyways – have a good night.

-dave

Ha ha – I wasn’t talking about you man, you rock – I was talking about the link to the Numis rep who jumped to a new deal – look in the previous comment.

lol.

P.S. We buy stuff at double and triple the price all the time at gas stations, airports, etc – just tossing that out there.

[Editor's Note: That's a convenience fee for the location. You get the same thing at the movies for popcorn or at the ballpark for beer. To compare them you'd have to consider that those places have to sell MonaVie they'd double or triple the price of it as well. You'd then be looking at $80 or $120 bottles of juice.

You need to compare apples to apples, not an apple to a fruit cup in a restaurant.]

David,

Hi I’m Jim. I wrote the article, thanks for your imput.

I think you would agree that the vast majority sign on to be a distributor in hopes of being profitable. My point still remains that this not a reasonable hope but rather a gauranteed mathematical certainty that 95% will in fact lose money and that is in a perfectly balanced downline. Since so few downlines are perfectly balanced the historical experience has been far worse that one in 20 being profitable.

Do you agree with the position that no matter how much effort is put forth, no matter which system is utilized that 95%+ absolutely have to be cash flow negative? I am very much interested in your confirmation as you seem to be an expert in MLM.

I believe that if most people understood that the math of the system is structured so that for each person profitable, 20 have to be unprofitable then the vast majority would not become distributors nor involve their friends and family. I think this should be a required disclosure. Do you agree this valuable certainty should be mandatory in an effort toward full and fair disclosure?

The opportunity is presented that anyone and everyone can make it work if enough effort Is put forth and you follow the system. I contend this is a
lie. While any one distributor can make a profit, everyone can not, only less than 5% can. Do you agree?

I updated David’s comment with some responses. I thought I’d add in a couple of other notes.

Jim, I would guess that David would say that consumers don’t need that kind of full and fair disclosure. They should be smart enough to figure it out themselves or live with the consequences good or bad. At least that’s what he said in the past.

Vogel, I swear by toast and Lattimore’s bear attack prevention pills. I haven’t been attacked by a bear yet. As for the toast, it works for me. ;-).

I liked the FAA regulation analogy much better than I like my pickpocket analogy. Good job.

Wow Vogel – that’s exactly what I meant man – you turned an honest debate into a character assault.

Rather than simply answering the questions you flipped out, like a little baby.

lol.

Well, think what you want to think – I tried to be reasonable but it looks like the only way to respond is to start throwing needless hate at you, even though I know nothing about you.

I would now respond, however, it looks like I now have a predictable response that will happen.

1. It will be brought back to a matter of simple opinion, where there is no right and wrong, just what we personally think to be true, and someone will say I’m wrong again, all while ignoring the non-mentioned similar ways that outside businesses and entities do the same exact thing, yet for some reason no one seems to be bothered by it – or think it relates.

2. Vogel will flip out, call me names, defame my personal character, and otherwise get infuriated mad.

I choose to depart :) Have fun guys, and enjoy your Monavie defamation in full, uninterrupted splendor.

Later,
dave

David, you have to have character to have it assaulted. You should expect this when you are against consumer protection and other things that help make a place a more advanced civilization.

You can play it off as a simple matter of opinion, but as I showed before, the world doesn’t agree with your opinion of consumer protection. As Vogel pointed out you might as well have the opinion that there should be no FAA and we should let unsafe airlines operate (and not tell people that the airlines could be unsafe as that would be bad for the airlines).

We’ve already explained why all the other businesses do not relate. What business did you mention that we didn’t address? (Please don’t come up with a new one to throw the topic off base.)

Oops, it looks like you are going away. As Orrin Woodward would say, you are just another MLM distributor quitter of this disucssion. It’s a shame that you chose to blame others like Vogel rather than take personal responsibility for your failure here.

DW said: “Wow Vogel – that’s exactly what I meant man – you turned an honest debate into a character assault. Rather than simply answering the questions you flipped out, like a little baby.”

Honest??? Be careful, your tongue might fall off. Dude, I haven’t even BEGUN to attack your character, but I have lots of ammunition so be careful about calling me to the mat – I’ll pound you into dust and you’ll end up wishing you’d never opened your mouth. You clearly aren’t here to debate Monavie because you’re talking about everything else but the subject at hand.

A few points you should be aware of:

1. When you purposely choose to avoid the topic of Monavie in favor of soap-boxing about tangential (at best) issues, it makes you look like a clueless simpleton, and your presence here becomes nothing more than a disruption and a nuisance. Get a clue – be aware of your surroundings.

2. You are throwing out vague arguments that seem to boil down to this – advocacy for the rights of MLM victims to be MLM victims. It’s so transparently ridiculous that I wish I could reach out and smack you upside the head. What you’re really arguing for is the rights of MLM victimizers to victimize people. You roll that in with a bit of faux-libertarian anti-government ranting to support your delusion of a dog-eat-dog world where everyone does exactly as they please regardless of the consequences. Your argument is not much different from saying that people should be allowed to murder others if they want to, regardless of the law, and that we should defend the right of people to become murder victims.

In a world without rules, a sniveling little stick insect like you would have been devoured a long time ago. You like the rules when they protect you; you just don’t like them when they limit the ability of MLMs to scam people. You’re the kind of faux “rebel” whose idea of radicalism is buying a Che Guevera t-shirt at the mall.

DW said: “Well, think what you want to think – I tried to be reasonable but it looks like the only way to respond is to start throwing needless hate at you, even though I know nothing about you.”

You don’t need to tell me that it’s OK for me to disagree with you, pompous dick! You haven’t tried to be reasonable. You’ve tried to be a pussy and dodge the issues, and you’ve succeeded. You purposely avoided the topic of Monavie in favor of making vague appeals on behalf of the rights of MLMers to exploit people. You’ve written pages of text already and yet said basically nothing of substance. You’re a mealy-mouthed, side-stepping apologist. Stop speaking in off-topic vagaries and get with the program.

DW said: “It will be brought back to a matter of simple opinion, where there is no right and wrong, just what we personally think to be true, and someone will say I’m wrong again, all while ignoring the non-mentioned similar ways that outside businesses and entities do the same exact thing, yet for some reason no one seems to be bothered by it – or think it relates.”

Case in point! All I can say here is….DUDE…WTF are you talking about??? I didn’t think it was possible to use so many words to say so little. Maybe that’s why you should have stayed in school instead of oozing forth into the world armed with nothing more than a high school education. It’s not just about money you know? Your brain is clearly starving and in dire need of nourishment.

DW said: “Vogel will flip out, call me names, defame my personal character, and otherwise get infuriated mad.”

You defame your own personal character. I merely point out the obvious. Don’t expect to be applauded for using forums like this as your personal piss-pot.

DW said: “I choose to depart Have fun guys, and enjoy your Monavie defamation in full, uninterrupted splendor.”

Of course you do you pussy! Depart before you get called to the mat! Just drop in, take a verbal dump, and then run away before you have to be held accountable right? That’s the MLM MO.

I can see what kind of a character you are just by reading a few of your posts here and some of your other crap on the web, like the following:

“On March 17 2010 iLearningGlobal canceled their network marketing comp plan and David and I as well as thousands of other Marketers around the world were forced out of business. David has now gone on to become a rising star in a company called Numis Network…When iLearningGlobal shut us out, most of David’s team followed him over to Numis Network.”

So two things for everyone here to note:

(1) David was hyping iLearningGlobal as a business opportunity, and with a snap of the fingers, the rug got pulled out from under him and his downline…poof…gone! Failure! Dave encouraged his downline to invest years of hard work under his leadership – and he led them off a cliff!

(2) Dave’s alleged success in Numis arose because he brought over an existing downline. That’s not something that an entry level distributor can replicate. You can’t hold yourself out as a teacher of success when (a) you failed, and (b) people can’t replicate your method – you are lying to them and teaching them to be nothing more than obedient sheep.

Congratulations Dave. You’re like the Pied Piper of lemmings. Keeping playing your pipe and luring people to their deaths (financial and spiritual).

Like so many MLMers you deceitfully try to co-opt the moral high ground; and yet you rally against consumer protection, make light of the plight of victims, and conveniently ignore the litany of appalling transgressions that have been associated with Monavie – these range from the use of doctor impersonators to flog the juice as a cancer cure, violation of US laws, gross misrepresentation of the product and business opportunity, fraudulent charities, affiliation with several convicted felons, and a seemingly never-ending chain of lies, liars, and nefarious cheats. Go read up about Royal Tongan Limu, Lou Niles, and the MORE Project for starters, then read up on the fraudulent product claims; and until you can face those facts and recognize them for what they are, you fully deserve to have your character called into question. You disgust me, and rightfully so.

David. I have to say, I am actually quite insulted by your posts. I was involved with Monavie and drank it purely for the alleged health benefits & nutrients I was promised it contained. Like Rasheed, I was told I was getting 13 servings of fruits and vegetables a day. This was proven to be a lie. EVERY distributor I knew spread that lie.

You say “If someone feels like they’re getting ‘scammed’ why not quit and request a refund and stop buying stuff they don’t want? Is America too retarded to make decisions for themselves?” Nice. I guess I was one of those retards.I had no access to information other then what people I TRUSTED told me. I have a trusting nature (well, “had”) so it wouldn’t even have occured to me to doubt what they were saying. A stranger perhaps, but not them. I couldn’t make a rational, informed decision because the only information available was information from my up-line/good friends, which I now know was dead wrong. That is awesome that you support that kind of manipulation of another human being’s trust.

Here is another “glitch” in your theory, as much as I am angry that I was taken for a ride, I don’t want to see my ex-friends in legal hot water because they are not ultimately to blame. They are being promised “financial freedom” and they aren’t giving up. I am mad at them for being ignorant and choosing to remain that way, but they aren’t to be blamed for the lies that are being fed to them. They are told to give their TVs away and don’t read newspapers or the internet. Why do you think that is? It wasn’t until I started researching the product and the company that I realized why. I just pray to the universe, every day ,that they come to their senses and find this website to start them on their journey to the truth.

I think using McDonalds as a comparison was a very poor choice. First of all, it is no secret that their food provides very little nutritionally and secondly , they are not charging $20 a burger. I assure you that if distributors provided full disclosure about the nutritional content of Monavie they wouldn’t sell a drop, well, unless they reduced it to the price of a Big Mac. Man, I am hungry now.

I live in Canada where our FDA laws are much stricter then in the U.S. I have ALWAYS been grateful for this because it protects me and my dear friends, families, colleagues and community. I guess making a buck just ain’t that important to me when it comes to the well being of those that I love.

I know that you won’t be back because your posts screamed of rationalization but I truly hope that you read this. I don’t know enough about the company that you are involved in to comment but you really ought not to have opined about Monavie without knowing the whole story.

BTW, I know lots of people that have moved to Costa Rica to live because the cost of living is lower there then in North America. If you told me that you were living in the south of France and flew your family there, I might be impressed…

Did you notice that David is charging $10,000 (yes, $10,000…that’s not a typo) for a 3-day one-on-one coaching session and the chance to learn his “top secret” methods. Talk about an overinflated sense of self worth!

Not to keep abusing this dead horse, but here is a concise summary of Numis and even a mention of Mr. Wood in the comments following the article:

http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2010/06/01/another-thinly-veiled-pyramid-scheme-numis-network/

Vogel,

Unbelieveable. That guy couldn’t pay me to sit down with him. When I see people making motivational videos in front of swimming pools with palm trees, the first thing I think is SCAM. These people are the ambulance chasers of motivational speaking.

AA,

I doubt David has any real customers. Most of his downline is distributors, as he harps on the MLM aspect and glazes over the actual product. I do not consider distributors to be customers in any fashion unless they are actually selling the product on the market, which happens like 2% of the time with ScamaVie.

I found this on top of a pile of cow dung outside a starbucks this morning:

Debate strategy for MonaVie defenders on Internet forums:

1. Introduction: Introduce yourself. You may use your real name or make one up. You can also make up some credentials to give your opinions some weight. (Don’t worry, they probably can’t check them out.) Then start asking questions such as: “Why is everyone here so mad?” “Don’t you guys have better things to do?”
2. Evidence: Think of a question that you don’t see on the page and that you feel your opponents may have difficulty answering. A question you have difficulty answering is usually good enough. Off topic questions are fine.
3. Discover that the question has been answered at least 10 times already (something you would have discovered if you read the rest of the blog.)
4. Ramble on about corporations being scams, the government running the biggest pyramid schemes (Look at the back of a dollar bill for inspiration) and DO NOT under any circumstances answer any questions asked to you. Aim a thinly veiled insult at one or two posters hoping to incite a response.
5. Repeat step 4.
6. Repeat step 4, then 5, then 4 again.
7. By now someone should have insulted your intelligence (Vogel). It is time to threaten to leave the discussion unless everyone promises to be nice to you. Throw out a few more insults.
8. Repeat step 4.
9. Announce you are leaving the discussion because no one is agreeing with you. Fake excuses are fine; remember that they cannot see you to verify what you are saying. Examples commonly used include: “I have better things to do,” “There are people waiting to be scammed,” “I am going on vacation,” “My speedboat won’t drive itself,” “Screw you guys, I’m going home,” “I have money to count.”
10. Repeat step 6.
11. Repeat step 9.
12. Congratulations! You are now a qualified Monavie Defender! To receive your diploma please send cash or a money order for $600.00 to Monavie HQ, no need to include a letter, we’ll know what to do with it. Or alternatively, get 20 people to sign up for the course and you’ll be eligible to receive your diploma for free*. (restrictions apply.)

I love it Notfooled!

Mackwiz said: “Vogel, Unbelieveable. That guy couldn’t pay me to sit down with him. When I see people making motivational videos in front of swimming pools with palm trees, the first thing I think is SCAM. These people are the ambulance chasers of motivational speaking.”

Amen! The first thing I think of is the owner of the property coming home in the middle of David’s steath shoot, and then chasing him away while hitting him with a broom. Either that or his mother interrupting to say “Davey, lunchtime…I cut the crust off your PB&J just the way you like it” to which DW would testily reply “Not now Ma, I’m trying to do millionaire stuff…quit bugging me…and there better be a big glass of milk with that.”

BTW, great post NotFooled!

It’s been 6 days since David Wood last commented. I’m dissapointed that he has left the conversation but I would like to address a couple comments in case he is reading and would like to rejoin and conversation.

David said “In case any of you are wondering why I care (since I’m not in Monavie) – the foundation of this article is an attack not just on Monavie, but on Network Marketing itself and the validity of the model.”

The article is not an attack on all network marketing models, only the endless recruiting scheme models. I don’t think the article would apply to models such as Pampered Chef, Tupperware, Avon or jewely parties that market directly. Rather it applies to the schemes where the true sale is the ability to sell the opportunity to others who will enroll others to sell the opportunity.

I get what you are contending that the distributors are getting juice and that has some value (although that value is questionable).

Would you then agree with this statement:
“95% of all distributors have to be cash flow negative regardless of effort or system they employ due to the mathematics of the scheme, but everyone gets juice”?

Finally, you said ” It will be brought back to a matter of simple opinion, where there is no right and wrong, just what we personally think to be true”

Would you agree math is not a matter of opinion? And would you agree that the math in this article is accurate? Again, I welcome your comments.

Numis Scam states “Interesting post, I would bet that there are people in Monavie making a boat load of money.”

No need to place bets – the 2009 IDS confirmed that a group representing 0.053% of the sales force got the lions share of commissions and averaged over $7000 per week. Fewer than 12% of the sales force averaged less than $50 per week and 87% of the sales force made zero in the first instance.

The numbers prove that very, very few are making a boat load of money. More importantly however is that greater than 99% of the sales force are losing money.

Numis Scam states “Every company has to come up with a comp plan that will be able to support a downline, I dont think that they think of a way to scam as many people as they can, if they did this they would not be around long.”

Aside from the fact that what’s factored into the cost of the products is the compensation plan that has to be supported, Monavie have had nearly 6 years to make the distribution of monies fairer on distributors – however this hasn’t occurred.

So how is it not a scam to continue to have in place a compensation plan that is so top-weighted and where the majority of funds are being transferred up the chain to the highest ranked? And how is it not a scam when this fact isn’t divulged to participants from the onset?

Furthermore, how is it not a scam under circumstances where the company promote and reinforce behaviours amongst distributors which only benefit the company and the very few who are profiting?

For example, we all know that a pyramid scheme is characterised by distributors not selling any products and services to non-participants, but rather from the recruitment of other participants into the scheme. Pyramid schemes are a form of fraud – in the vicinity of 99% of all participants will always be at the bottom where no profits are able to be made.

From the onset, distributors are asked peddle a grossly overpriced product thus making retail selling virtually impossible. You will note that out of the 9 ways to earn commissions in Monavie, only 2 of these relate to selling (retail mark-up and retailers bonus) – the remainder relate to recruitment activities. The big dollars are not promised for selling any products but rather for building a huge downline (that is, recruitment).

So again I ask, how is it not a scam from the onset to introduce a compensation plan which provides the fewest rewards to the front line distributor for making the sale and have no policies and procedures (no interest, in fact) in ensuring that distributors are being paid based on bona-fide sales to customers? We know for a fact that distributors are also engaged in rank and bonus buying – activities which again continue to benefit the company and those who are profiting, but not the average distributor.

Monavie are entirely responsible for the losses amongst the sales force – they fraudulently promote the scheme as an opportunity which it clearly isn’t and a scheme where all of the policies in place (or lack of policies in place to ensure the legality of the scheme and to ensure distributors are engaged in sustainable business practices) are really only designed to benefit only the very few.

Numis Scam concludes “Just my 2 cents”

I’m thinking that’s all it was worth. Sorry.

I’m sure this has already been covered, but just in case it hasn’t. The break even point in monavie is not 1 in 21, its actually closer to 1 in 31. A case of juice costs about $140 plus shipping. 1 case gets you 100pv. Monavie makes 35-40% profit right off the bat because of breakage built in to their pv/bv ratio.

So, using these numbers you would need to generate about $150 in commission to pay for 1 case. That’s 15 on your left and 15 on your right on 100 pv which would equate to 1500pv on each side. 1500×10% is $150.00
That’s 1 person out of a total of 31 making enough to cover 1 case.
Do you think this affects attrition? LOL SIGN ME UP!!

I was going to post a correction to your original post, but when I scrolled to the bottom here my friend Michael had already corrected your computations. One in 31 is totally correct. Screw the FOB and BOB and Starmaker, that is all fluff. Remember, MLM is about “residual” or “recurring” income..hahahaha! And only 1 in 31 can earn enough residual to break even. That is a maximum success rate of around 3.2% based on their own mathematics. Throw in mitigating factors such as skill level, positioning, upline, spillover, etc, etc, and it will actually look like something closer to the mv income disclosure statement. Look at this document less than .5% of all distributors can even pay for their own juice. Simply amazing! And I simply love the redefining of who a customer and distributor really is. Classic!

http://toddhartog.com/income-disclosure-statement.pdf

Brent and Mike, or anyone else for that matter, can you tell me if there is a required amount of people, or pionts, below you to reach the different ranks? What exactly determines the different ranks.

Thanks for any help.

Mike, I am curious, how did you feel about the whole religious aspect of the biz? Dallin did a mass baptism at on of the R3G conventions last year and it made me queasy to see this blatant abuse of one’s faith. Did you find that when you were involved? Not only are they leveraging people’s friendship for sales, but also their religious faith and there is something so wrong about that to me. I see that a lot of the MLMs out there are Christian or Mormon based.

Mike, thank you so much for the info. I’m glad you found this site.

I’m not familiar with what a “break insertion” is, can you explain? Did you experience this or any back room deals within Mona vie?

I agree they deliberately muddied the waters by eliminating that first column. Why would you not include it if the numbers continued to look positive.

Jim, Mike, and Brent,

I want to thank you for getting into this in more detail. It is extremely valuable. I’ve been reading, but I’ve been quite busy looking into Protandim – another health MLM scam.

I should mention that we’d discussed the compensation in detail posts like: http://www.juicescam.com/monavie-is-embarrassed-by-their-income-disclosure-statement-2/. It came to the same conclusion as Mike’s Facebook post, around 99.6% of people lose money when considering the autoship. It can get a lot worse when you factor in any tools purchased, conferences attended, etc.

To All: break inserts do happen but not always. They are not always necessary. If you will read the post Brent linked all of you on here http://amthrax.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/binary-discussion-on-facebook/ you will see what I mean. “Leaders” often stack multiple positions underneath them in the event they come across another “leader” to entice them to come over. This way they will be able to benefit off work that they did not do.

I was the beneficiary of one of these deals. I moved into the position and started to build it but stopped. During my stint with this particular company the owner instructed me to do the same thing, buy multiple positions. This is of course against the policies and procedures so we put them under family members names.

I went to another company with a different leader who got “placed”. As a result I was placed very near the top of the tree. It was through this process that I started to really understand what it truly involved in building this business.

It is very common. Dallin Larsen did this with Robert Dean on top of the millions he “allegedly” paid him. Rob only built one leg and he hit black diamond in 4 months. Orrin Woodward was an EDC in Amway before he started feuding with them. He was reportedly making $4-500,000 a year. Within months of moving to MV he was a presidential diamond reportedly earning $2-3 million. I was told he was given a position by Ken Porter and only had to build one leg. Even if he built 2 he would still be making a boatload of money. He has or had a huge organization. But “smart leaders” don’t build 2 legs. I certainly wouldn’t. I doubt Orrin did.

Read the thread with Ken Stewart. This is how it is done. Period. I don’t care what anyone says to the contrary. The “system” that the “leaders” teach from the stage on how to build a business is for suckers and rookies i.e.: the masses. The ironic thing is that the big checks that these leaders are “earning” are on the very backs of the masses they are deceiving.

Lets just do a quick estimate of a typical month’s worth of “business expenses” for tools, training and travel. This does not include any products at all. This is not the top packages available from the different systems, just a middle of the road, or conservative estimate, of someone who is “plugged in”.

4 weekly open meetings for you and your wife @$5.00 per head = $40.00
4 meals for two people after the open meetings to spend time with your “leadership or mentors” = $80.00

2 monthly seminar tickets @$25.00 ea. = $50.00
Seminars usually are 2-3 hours away so there is a meal sometimes two depending on location
= $30.00

Weekly CD packages and Book of the Month for a total of $75.00

Miscellaneous Cds, magazines, and brochures to leave with prospects after business the introduction to the “opportunity”. = $100 per month.

Gas and other meals while out “building the business” = $200-$300 per month.

Total: $575.00 to $675.00 per month. I personally had several $1,000 months. One of the last meetings I conducted while building mv cost me a case and a half of juice which cost approximately $200. So that one meeting with materials was probably about a $250.00 meeting.

Now who is the genius?

How did you figure out the math Jim? I was in amway first for about 3 years aprrox. 17 years ago. I swore off MLM after that convinced it was useless. When I saw the binary in Monavie I thought, this is going to be a piece of cake. Who can’t build two legs?

I then went on to hit Ruby in 10 weeks. I started making money. That was all I needed. It never dawned on me to ask the question until MV fell apart and I went to the other companies. I started noticing some common threads. So I started asking the right questions. You have to know which questions to ask. I think the process is a little different for everyone.

Most people get in, lose money, listen to all the BS about how it’s their fault, then quietly slip away just wanting to forget they were ever “stupid” enough for trying. Or they believe that they just didn’t “have what it takes” or “didn’t work it hard enough”

There’s nothing wrong with them quitting and disappearing. I think it sad if they believe that line that they were fed by their upline. It is a systematic reprogramming that starts from the minute you get in. It’s very seductive.

When I started to struggle I went through all the things that everyone, and I mean everyone goes through. But I am not used to losing so I wanted to know exactly what the process was, so I started gathering information. I’ve been doing this for the past 18 mos. I now have enough info to make $100s of thousands of dollars in the mlm arena. I just don’t have the heart to do it. I find it morally objectionable.

I can tell by the fact that you didn’t know what a break insertion is that you probably haven’t been at the level that Brent and I have. So I wonder if you understand the whole picture. I’m don’t mean to sound condescending here. But you go through a lot. This industry is extremely crooked as I’m sure you are aware.

As far as understanding the numbers and why i didn’t catch on sooner, I like to use a quote about inflation that draws, in my opinion, a very fitting parallel. Pay attention to the last part of the last sentence.

It says: There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

One in a million……what an interesting thought.

Now I can’t even count! Its the sixth paragraph ….

Mike, no offense taken, no need to apologize. In fact, you’re entirely correct, not only have I never been at your level, I’ve never been in MLM, I just know people who are. Actually, I’m grateful you and Brent made the correction that it’s not 20 people who have to lose in order to break even it’s more like 30. I think this is important for people to see, for them to realize that the business is not about juice, but is about the opportunity and the opportunity is rigged from the onset.

You asked how I figured out the math. For me, I figured out the general scheme the first time I saw it. No offense, but to me it was fairly obvious that it was just a pyramid scheme with a bottle of juice attached. I understand not everybody does see this and it is my hope to help others understand the math. That being said, clearly you both understand the compensation plan better than me and I look forward to any other clarification and input you can provide. My goal is not for me to make mona vie look bad but to be as accurrate as possible and let the facts of the math speak for themselves.

Brent said “@Jim, not to seem naive or rude, what makes you think the common person understands the math? I have had the discussion with top-earners in the industry who do not even understand the math of their own compensation plans. It is nuts!”

I find that very interesting. I don’t think it would be reasonable to believe that those at the very top do not know what the scheme is all about and the associated math. Perhaps they play ignorant when asked. But I do think you can be profitable, even quite profitable, and still be an unwitting dupe in the scheme. I don’t doubt that there are many involved who through group think and other psychological influences truely believe this is an honest to goodness legitimate opportunity to change their lives for the better. I don’t think the epiphany comes just because one reached a certain level, but rather through a critical evaluation.

That being said, what responsibility does the successful distributor, or any distributor, bear? Clearly anyone who has been around MLM for even a short period of time hears the objection that it looks like a pyramid scheme, even if it’s just from the diamonds talking about how it isn’t one. At some point isn’t it just willful neglect not to see what’s behind this criticism? Wouldn’t you want to research and read what the opponents say, if nothing else so you can see their “errors” and be able to explain them to your prospects? Does your upline telling you not to read negative information alleviate one from this responsibility?

Once you look, there are multiple legitimate experts who spell out the math and the math is irrefutable. You seemed to say that nobody ever asked about the math. This basically means nobody ever looked, or looked hard enough, but really it’s easy. I find this very troubling. Is the psychological influence so great that nobody dares go against the instructions of their leaders and the group?

When I first started looking into mona vie I was actually very surprised that everyone seemed to be arguing over the miraculous benefits of the juice, which luckily Vogel, Food Tech, Candice, Lattimore, Lazy man and others were doing an outstanding job of researching and refuting. I mean, they really crushed it. If you’ve got the time, go read the archives on lazyman and money, it’s gold. And still people show up here and elsewhere with miracle health claims, which by the way makes mlm’s involved in health products potentially physically dangerous on top of financially damaging. This led me to think of the following analogy:

Have you ever seen a street magician do the trick where he puts a quarter in someone’s hand, grabs them by the wrists, bangs their hands together a few times and viola!…they open their hands and the quarter has miraculously disappeared? This is my analogy to mlm. While everyone is amazed and argueing how or whether he made the quarter dissapear, even people swearing that it happened because they saw it with their own eyes, they fail to realize the magician has taken the watch off the wrist of the dupe during the trick.

Just as we know through science, logic and reason that the quarter did not dissapear, as long as the focus is continued to be placed on whether or not the juice actually works, the theft of the scheme will continue to be successful.

There is no way I can convince a true believer, especially one who has experienced a placebo effect, that all of these miracle juices are nothing more than just plain juice. All the science and logic just isn’t going to work. But I do believe I can present a good person with the facts of the math and the damage that must be inflicted, and that I hope can influence them.

While I may not be able to convince someone who experiences the quarter dissappearing that they didn’t experience what they think they did, I can point to their wrist and show them their watch is missing.

…I failed to thank Humiliated too…my bad. And Anonymous Aussie too…how could I forget! Sorry if I forgot to mention anyone else by name.

Continuing with the discussion of analogies, I’ve often thought of that magician analogy while reviewing the company’s scientific claims and research, because in a sense, I’m a magician too and I can see through every one of their scientific tricks. I’m watching a second-rate magician pull sleight of hand and dazzle the audience, none of them realizing that The Amazing Dallinski (with the help of his loyal assistant Schaussie) didn’t really saw a woman in half, he used a set of fake legs; he didn’t pull a hankie out of his nose, he pulled it out of his sleeve; the rabbit was in the hat the whole time; and the coin didn’t disappear, he just cupped it in his left palm.

The other analogy I find irresistible is that of a movie set (MLMs modern day version of the classic snakeoil traveling medicine show). The movie set that Monavie creates is designed to resemble a real corporation; the execs and kingpins are all actors and the distributors are the audience. I think that a lot of the people who get roped into Monavie have no clue what a real corporation looks like or how it’s run, so the movie set version looks to them just like the real thing.

My favorite character in the production is the bellowing, belittling, braggart millionaire executive. That always seems to play well for the audience because they think that’s how a CEO really acts, probably because they closest they’ve ever come to one is watching Trump on The Apprentice or Mr. Howell on Gilligan’s Island.

The other movie set, for the distributor training events, is designed to resemble something akin to a stockholder’s meeting (with a healthy dose of 3-ring circus/variety show thrown in for entertainment value). The rubes in the audience don’t seem to know that at a real corporate meeting, the execs don’t stand on stage bragging about how much money they made to motivate the secretaries, salesmen and janitors; they don’t show slides of their vacation in Bora Bora; and they don’t rub dirt in their employees’ faces by presenting the VP with the keys to an expensive new sports car.

The other movie set they use is the scientific seminar, reminiscent of what you might see at a biotech startup R&D meeting or a medical research conference, except the big difference is that the script read by the lecturer at the podium on Monavie’s set consists of jargon-laden misleading nonsense and the bobbleheads in the audience don’t know enough to realize how bad the actor’s performance really is.

Monavie’s sales tools concession is like a blend between a movie theater popcorn stand and a tacky souvenir shop at a second rate tourist trap.

But wait! There’s more! 10 cents from every $50 ticket to “Monavie: The Movie” goes to your local distributor and a hundredth of a penny goes to drug-addicted orphan baby prostitute landmine victims in some third world country.

Awww..I miss Lattimore, Food Tech and Candace! You guys were the pioneers Vogel! I wish they would pop by and say hello!

Vogel, you have a really good point. So many of the people that I saw getting involved with MonaVie were not savvy to the ways of the Corporate world, they hadn’t had to sit in on a (yawn) budget meeting etc.. I think I almost break into hives when I hear “meeting with the VP” or “solution gathering seminar” at my job..and I love my job (well…most days)!

The conventions don’t even come close to one that would happen in the “real world” with singers, preachers, fake doctors etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dallin & Brig don’t walk out in a fog of dry ice and the sound system blaring “Stairway to Heaven”! It is EXACTLY what you say..a well orchestrated show. But, to the ignorant (read inexperienced) masses it is very effective.

JS! How exciting! I can’t wait until you get the new site up and running!! Any idea when that will be?

Vogel, you crack me up……Gilligans island, Dallinski, funny stuff!

Brent: “Vogel, you crack me up……Gilligans island, Dallinski, funny stuff!”

I can’t help myself man, this stuff is so comical at times, and I have to keep my wrath balanced with humor so that I don’t get my yin-yang all out of whack. Lattimore was the real master of Monavie satire though…brilliant and powerful. A complete absence of humor on the part of every ardent Monavie distributor that’s ever posted here has always been one of the biggest red flags about this company, unless of course you happen to find humor in comments like:

“Monavie cure grandmas CANCER! You guys are negativ and probebly think farmasooticals are the bee all and end al. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Gotta love the ‘shot at stardom and freedom’!

I was thinking a ‘good idea’ would be take up babysitting. Definitely wouldn’t have to worry about the ‘break even’, it pays more and it doesn’t take much to convince a little child you are a ‘star’…most think their parents are..and if you really wanted to ‘create a community of like-minded’ then babysit more children or open a day care..lol

@Vogel, wrath balanced with humor, thanks for the heads up, I guess I should display both simultaneously huh? Gilligan’s island, hahaha, I am still chuckling, and its been days. Dry ice, fog, stairway to heaven, love it, love it, I never knew that commenting on blogs could be so entertaining.

@Jim, I honestly believe that Troy has never been hit head on with the things that Michael and I have been hitting him with. I think part of cognitive dissonance require one to make a decision one way or the other, then think up every justification possible to support that decision. The only way I can understand is through my own experience, I have been there, so I have empathy. I know every one liner for MLM, and could smack down even the best critic. I chuckled the other day as I recalled a story that I shared with Michael about showing Amway to a millionaire friend of mine. He smiled at me and said, “Brent, don’t you know these things cannot work.” To which I responded, “yes they do and I will show you.” He said, “when you have your mercedes bought and paid for by money you have earned from mlm, come back and I will join you.” I glared at him and said, “see you soon.” Now who is the ASS here. Twelve years came and went in that opportunity, and I burned up 4 cadillacs (hahaha) but never got the elusive mercedes benz, nor the six figure passive income I had bragged about.

I was probably the poster child for cognitive dissonance, so I know what internal conflict feels like first hand. As for Dooly, when I brought these equations to him and many others, they simply tried to redefine “success” in an mlm. After all didn’t you know Jim that according to the DSA over 70% of all of those who sign up, do so to simply receive a discount on the products? It is not about business at all, they simply LOVE MLM PRODUCTS, and join because they want a little better price.

Furthermore, there is a whole multitude who join simply for the comradery, friendship, or to be part of something. According to Troy, all of these could be counted as “SUCCESS” in mlm, therfore my mathematics simply do not explain the whole story, and do not provide an adequate explanation of success and failure in an MLM. Kind of funny as I logged into my MV back office for the first time in 3 1/2 years and discovered that there was 1 single case of juice sold throughout my team of 600 plus associates last month. Now where are all those who simply joined for a discount? Is it possible that the DSA is full of it?

You know Jim the DSA is the ultimate source of all light and knowledge right? After all they are the prestigous governing body of MLM, they are the industry watchdogs, and when they speak it is gospel.

Now that you bring it to my attention, you are right, Troy never did come at me with anything to dispel the reality of mathematics, interesting.

@SYT, babysitting and lawnmowing would both be great alternatives. Both would provide more income than most of the MLM models out there. Great thinking! I hit another pro MLM guy before with the fact that my friend makes more off of his boxer who has one litter of puppies a year, than most people who take MLM serious. He was pissed off at me and explained how engaging in MLM was simply worth it if for nothing else than the tax savings alone. Afterwards I brought it to his attention that the average American pays zero income taxes, and he did his best to baffle his way out of that comment as well.

The story is always the same with these guys, they have all experienced dissonance, and it takes some sort of come to Jesus realization that they are engaged in models that HURT PEOPLE, STEAL FROM PEOPLE, AND ROB PEOPLE OF THEIR DRIVE AND INTEGRITY. ENOUGH SAID FOR NOW!

@Jim, you are dead on when you said that there is a “certainity of failure”, one of the most interesting things I have found is that most MLM guys cannot differentiate between mathematics, and statistics. Many of them are more than anxious to quote statistics as justification for their models, but success in an mlm is determined by mathematics. There is no way that you and I can become a victim of statistics, but we both can become victims of mathematics.

I wonder which exchange you read between Troy and I, there have been quite a few, on quite a few different points.

@Jim, I actually have files of conversations all tucked nicely away waiting for the right opportunity. Screen shots are an amazing thing.

The sad thing is about all of this is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Any company could create a model that would be viable for the masses. It seems however that they are all satisfied with their day in the sun, a quick burst of growth followed by plateau and decline.

Greed stops them from creating a “real” business model. I spent 30 minutes on the phone yesterday with an Amway corporate rep asking them about the mathematics of their deal. I haven’t been around the stairstep for about 6 years now so I wanted to refresh. Funny thing is, even the corporate people believed that it was a viable model.

Sometimes I think I might be the crazy one, its like being in the matrix or something. Blue pill red pill?