Subject: Re: Re: ENRIQUE AND MLM

Comments:
: <dir>: : Posted by Enrique on December 10, 2003 at 00:26:37: : : In Reply to: Primerica is MLM by legal definition posted by eric on December 08, 2003 at 16:26:21: : : Sorry, but I disagree. Since you are whipping out your "LEGAL" stick, I'll address it from that perspective. : : 1) Is Primerica "any person, firm, corporation, or other business entity"? Yes. : : 2) Does PFS "sell, distribute, or supply for a valuable consideration goods or services" ? Yes. : : 3) Do they do 2) "through independent agents, contractors, or distributors at different levels"? Yes. : : 4) Can "such participants recruit other participants" ? Yes. : : 5) Are "commissions, cross-commissions, bonuses, refunds, discounts, dividends, or other considerations in the program paid as a result of the sale of such goods or services" ? Yes. : : 6) Are PFS reps paid for "the recruitment"? *No*. : : 7) Are PFS reps paid for the "actions, or performances of additional participants"? Yes. : : PFS fails point 6, therefore, LEGALLY (your word) its not an MLM. : : Yes, I admit I'm arguing semantics. But you started it. If you want to toss down the "LEGALESE" gauntlet, I dont mind picking it up and smacking you with it. I proved that one tiny phrase in your legal definition doesnt apply, therefore, in LEGAL terms, Primerica isn't an MLM. : : But, dont get me wrong. An MLM is a very good way to market products and services. I think it was smart for PFS to take some parts of the MLM business model and use them to their advantage. Every one knows that the biggest downside of real MLMs are that you have to pay to join, and that payment is paid to your recruiter, and thus is a form of incentive to recruit. Since that *fundamental* MLM mechanic *does not exist* at Primerica, it is not what anyone would consider an MLM by common definition. : --------------------------- : Mike W., you are missing the point. If the internal structure of PFS was illegal, I tend to believe the FTC would have already called them on the carpet as their internal structure being unlawful. : The point is not the manner in which they apply their operation, it is the false, misleading and deceptive orchestrations the use to induce the public into engaging into a business relationship with the company through the PFS Sales Division. : There are many insurance companies that market their products through "Brokers" so to say that do not have official sales forces in the company's interstructure. There is nothing unlawful about that either. : They can be either "Direct Writers" or they can be "Captured Brokers". The agents at the PFS Sales Division are "Captured Brokers" according to State DOI definition and not "Independent Broker Direct Writers". : If more people would place their emphesis on "what they are orchestrating" to the public "found under the State guidelines for misrepresentation inducements" instead of the internal structure of the company I believe that those of use who oppose their sales practices which violate State Codes would get this puppy moving faster to bring those false, misleading and deceptive inducement orchestration to a halt. : I would suggest that these "ARM CHAIR ATTORNEYS" should stop telling their lawyers jokes and get down to the root of the problem. : Mike, I find your personal postings and your responses to them very interesting. Will this posting be filtered out also?

Please enter the characters in the image above.