Around three years ago, after receiving comments referring to 'Tropic Skin Care' as, 'Britain's home-grown MLM,' I posted an explanatory article.
In the last few weeks, I have suddenly received over 500 page-visits to this 2015 article and I have finally been contacted by a media-researcher who wants to know:
- "How does the Tropic Business work?"
- "Have you received any legal threats from Tropic?"
The following article explains why so called 'MLM businesses' are not businesses (in the traditional sense of the word) and why the bosses of 'MLM' rackets have no rational argument when faced with a well-informed challenge to the authenticity of their capitalist fairy story.
This article has been updated.
Tropic doesn't hide the numbers, it has 7000 signed up.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm misjudging you Anonymous, but why is it that I get the impression you are not in the slightest bit interested in reading what I have posted?
DeleteAll 'MLM' front companies boast about the number of annual contracts they have running, but this is a misleading snapshot designed to give the illusion of viability and stability.
The real question is: what possible lawful reason could 'MLM' bosses have for not voluntarily disclosing the overall net-loss/churn rates of their so-called 'income opportunities?'
This is why I wrote:
I've been examining the 'MLM' phenomenon for around 20 years. During this time, I've yet to find one so-called 'MLM' company that has voluntarily made key-information available to the public concerning the quantifiable results of its so-called 'income opportunity'.
Part of the key-information that all 'MLM' bosses seek to hide concerns the overall number of persons who have signed contracts since the front companies were instigated and the retention rates of these contractees.
When rigorously investigated, the overall hidden net-loss churn rates for so-called 'MLM income opportunites' has turned out to have been effectively 100%. Thus, anyone claiming (or implying) that it is possible for anyone (meaning the average participant) to make a penny of net-profit, let alone a living, in an 'MLM,' cannot be telling the truth and will not provide quantifiable evidence to back up his/her anecdotal claims.
I've been asked whether I believe Lord Sugar fully-understands what is going on?
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to say 'no,' but Sugar can't be entirely-ignorant of the 'Herbalife' scandal or of the notorious/laughable reputation that the wider 'MLM' phenomenon has acquired.
In the final analysis, unless Sugar were to face prosecution, the leading role he has played in this particular adaptation of the pernicious 'MLM' controlling scenario, is not at issue.
Sugar might very well be another useful 'MLM' idiot or he might have worked out how 'MLMs' function and concluded that you can operate this type of profitable 'Long Con' without any risk of being held fully to account.
Either way, Sugar is not going to want to face the truth and, therefore, he will probably continue to recite the 'MLM' fairy story.
The only thing that really interests me, is what the quantifiable evidence proves the real nature of Sugar's 'Tropic' enterprise to be. Tellingly, Alan Sugar and his associates have not made this evidence publicly available.
David
ReplyDeleteHave you looked at Tropic's website?
http://www.tropicskincare.com/ambassador
"There are no guarantees regarding income and like any other self-employed business, income depends upon each Ambassador's own skills and personal effort. Tropic is a product-driven company that strongly encourages the use of its products before becoming an independent Ambassador. It is illegal for a promoter or a participant in a trading scheme to persuade anyone to make a payment by promising benefits from getting others to join the scheme."
Anonymous - I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, because this extract from the 'Tropic' Website contains classic elements of the blame-the victim 'MLM' controlling scenario.
DeleteOn this Website, 'income' is presented as being dependent on the 'use' of products and on the effort and skills put in by the 'MLM' participants who are described as 'self-employed,' but it is an inevitability that the ovewhelming majority of 'MLM' participants will not be able to generate a net-profit no matter how much time, effort and cash they invest trying to recruit others to 'use' the products.
In 'MLM' rackets, the products' real function has been to launder losing investment payments into rigged-market swindles.
In MLM rackets, the overall net-loss churn rates is the key-information which has been withheld. This is contrary to the UK Fraud Act 2006 (section 3).
On Tropic's Website, the inaccurately-worded UK Trading Schemes Act 1993 is quoted, but tellingly the accurately-worded UK Fraud Act 2006 (section 3) is not quoted.
No matter what bedazzling product/service has been dangled as bait, in 'MLM' rackets, there has been no significant or sustainable source of revenue other than never-ending chains of contractees of the 'MLM' front companies. These front-companies always pretend that their products/services are high quality and reasonably-priced and that for anyone prepared to put in some effort, the products/services can be sold on for a profit via expanding networks of distributors based on value and demand. In reality, the underlying reason why it has mainly only been (transient) 'MLM' contractees who have bought the various products /services (and not the general public) is because they have been tricked into unconsciously playing along with the controlling scenario which constantly says that via regular self-consumption and the recruitment of others to do the same, etc. ad infinitum, anyone can receive a future (unlimited) reward.
A person claiming to be a former 'Tropic Ambassador' (who wishes to remain anonymous), has written to me to say that I'm 'completely wrong about Tropic being like other MLMs.'
ReplyDeleteThis person insists that 'Tropic was thoroughly investigated by The Talented Ladies Club.'
https://www.talentedladiesclub.com/articles/how-much-can-you-earn-with-mlm-tropic-skincare/
I have read the objective evaluation of the 'Tropic MLM income opportunity' compiled by Hannah Martin of the 'Talented Ladies Club.'
DeleteTellingly, this detailed document concludes that Susan Ma's own claim that her 'MLM' company's activities are different to other 'MLM' company's activities, is only credible in respect of certain activities.
However common-sense dictates that, like a counterfeit banknote, the fact that parts of 'Tropic' can pass inspection, is no guarantee of authenticity.
Predictably, just like other 'MLM' bosses, when challenged, Susan Ma has stuck to the familiar script and insisted that the overwhelming majority of persons who have signed contracts with her company have done so only to buy products, and not to earn income.
However, Susan Ma was not asked:
How many individuals in total have signed contracts with 'Tropic' since the company was first instigated?
What % of these persons have remained under contract for more than one year, two years, three years, four years, etc.?
What possible lawful reason would explain why the key-information contained in truthful answers to the above questions has not been made publicly available?
Blog readers should note that I have put a whole list of common-sense questions to the person who contacted me claiming to be 'a former Tropic Abassador,' but I have not received the slightest reply.
e.g.
Other than vague anecdotal claims 'to have earned money,' can you produce quantifiable evidence (particularly income tax payment receipts) to prove that you actually generated an overall net-profit from regularly retailing 'Tropic' products to general public (based on value and demand)?
Before you signed up for 'Tropic,' were you shown any quantifiable evidence (particularly income tax payment receipts) proving that other particpants have actually generated an overall net profit from regularly retailing Tropic products to general public (based on value and demand)?
The fact remains that 'Tropic' employs essentially the same reality- inverting business jargon and mystifying mathematics as all other 'Amway' copy-cat 'MLM' cultic rackets.
Notwithstanding certain apparent differences, all the available quantifiable evidence proves that the underlying activities of 'Tropic' have been neither original nor unique, and consequently, this British 'MLM' cannot be fully-understood in isolation.