What began final month when MLM Watchdog Rod Cook shot an analytical review of MonaVie has now moved into a really complicated collection of occasions which has, in some peoples thoughts pitted MonaVie in opposition to the First Modification proper of Ted Nuyten, founding father of BusinessForHome.org. Ted wrote an article final week titled – “MonaVie Revenue 2010 Under Heavy Pressure?”
The idea of this text was based on nameless data provided to the MLM Bashing website of Terry Coenen “The Fraud Information” in an article she wrote again in Could titled – “An anonymous source reveals numbers for MonaVie.
After writing the above article, Ted obtained a Stop and Desist discover from MonaVie’s lawyer’s demanding he eliminated the unbiased data.
Ted and I are good associates and I stand by his proper to publish the article. He did an awesome job of including disclaimers to the article, letting people know he didn’t know if the knowledge was right or not. Nonetheless, what he did not do, is hyperlink to the unique article on Coenen’s website. That is what precipitated MonaVie to ship their authorized group his path.
Ted adopted up with a brand new put up hitting MonaVie for attacking “Freedom of Speech” and linking to the unique article in his follow-up article titled – “Monavie letter to Ted Nuyten regarding the Reported Revenue for 2010”
And, you guessed it, Terry Coenen wrote her personal follow-up article slamming MonaVie in an article titled – “MonaVie lawyers are again threatening critics
Let me state, Terry Coenen is a forensic accountant and fraud examiner, who investigates white collar crimes. I’ve little question she is sweet at her profession. As a matter of truth she has written a few books on the topic. Nonetheless, we see Direct Promoting, particularly respectable MLM corporations from full diabolically opposed views.
I consider had Ted linked to the Coenen’s authentic article because the supply of his data, he would by no means have obtained a letter from MonaVie. I additionally consider had he not used data from a recognized MLM bashing web site, this concern wouldn’t have grown as massive because it has.
All of us who’re advocates and ambassadors of Direct Promoting, MLM and Community Advertising must be very cautious with our use of Free Speech! Though it’s out Proper, it additionally comes with large duties! Simply because we now have the appropriate to put in writing one thing, does not imply it’s proper to put in writing it!
Our #1 accountability ought to to not give attention to “Our Rights” as a lot correctly to give attention to the lives of the distributors we impact, by posting partial truths. Tens of millions of distributors are taking a look at MLM as a technique to earn a strong part-time revenue, or change their present full-time revenue.

In spite of everything this occurred I reached out to Dallin Larsen and requested him a few questions.

Troy:
“Dallin primarily based on present rumors surrounding the actual fact MonaVie’s angle and even tradition appears to have modified recently, are you able to shed some gentle on what’s going on?”
Dallin: “Troy, I’m unaware of any firm within the historical past of Direct Promoting that’s achieved the success that MonaVie has achieved in its first 5 years. I consider it’s unprecedented. Nonetheless, I additionally perceive the necessity to continuously reinvent your self as an organization as a result of we reside in an ever altering world.
Simply as an toddler grows as much as a young person after which an grownup, corporations, together with MonaVie, should do the identical. What obtained us to our first couple billion in gross sales received’t get us to the place we have to go so we now have varied initiatives underway of which I’m very excited, together with product growth and different initiatives.
MonaVie won’t all the time be first to market relative to product growth however we are going to all the time be “Finest in Class.” Merchandise which can be on the vanguard of science. Our dedication to science is evidenced by the thousands and thousands we’ve spent to this point, validating the efficacy of our merchandise.”

Troy: “Dallin, I’ve one different query I wish to ask, for the article I’m writing. Based mostly on the present nameless article and up to date evaluation on MonaVie’s decline in revenues, and attainable loss of life dive, are you able to share something on the monetary facet of the MonaVie home?”
Dallin: “Troy, with our webcast in October, we are going to unveil the subsequent section for MonaVie. Let me merely say that within the phrases of Mark Twain,” the experiences of my loss of life are drastically exaggerated.
We’re a non-public firm and don’t launch our numbers bus let me merely say that I simply returned from 10 international locations over the past 90 days and we’re rising. Up in some markets and down in others. There’s a cycle in enterprise and there’s a cycle on this business.
We’ve had a really troublesome financial system to take care of however there are 6 plus billion individuals on this planet and lots of of them are on the lookout for a technique to earn an additional supply of revenue and MonaVie intends on persevering with to supply a strong alternative for years to return.
Since MonaVie started operations in January of 2005, we’ve paid commissions precisely and on time, each week, and we are going to proceed doing so.”

I went and took a have a look at the numbers primarily based on a number of the identical web sites others have used to advertise the decline in MonaVie’s site visitors and attainable revenues. I additionally wish to make it clear that Direct Promoting Information, the business chief in updated data on direct promoting corporations simply listed MonaVie as #17 out of the highest 100 global Direct Selling Companies. with $785 million in wholesale revenues as of 2009.
The photographs beneath from Alexa.com as of August 18th, 2010, reveals that MonaVie has had a decline in site visitors hitting their fundamental company website. Nonetheless, in reviewing the photographs beneath it’s straightforward to see the one firm gaining large quantities of Site visitors is Amway. Which in March of 2010 launched one of many largest advert campaigns i the historical past of Direct Promoting. Investing thousands and thousands month-to-month to re-brand itself to Amway International. This marketing campaign is worldwide.
MonaVie’s decline introduced it according to different corporations contained in the practical well being beverage class. Firms like Vemma, Noni and XanGo. This is a sign, that the corporate has plateaued with its present advertising and marketing efforts, and is able to transfer into it is second stage of development. (As Dallin talked about above.)

MonaVie Alexa Ranking August 18 2010

MonaVie Compete Ranking August 18, 2010

1 COMMENT

    • Troy:
      Appreciate your website, interesting discussions around this whole Monavie Income issue. Based on your comments, I can clearly see that you have a problem with this information being obtained and reported to the public without the company's permission. But what is your stance with this same company and its officer's and contracted distribitors promoting the fantastic growth in revenues as a means to induce new distributors to sign-up and yet not provide any official documentation or specific details? You appear to have no problem including the above website "Direct Selling News" as an official source of the $785M 2009 revenue, yet how can anyone truly trust such figures? How is it that you seem to be OK if distributors and pormoters of Monavie state that the company is growning, but if someone questions that growth or states revenue figures that the company doesn't like, you seem to want to the focus on the source of information yet you don't seem to have a problem accepting anything that the company or its promoters try to spin as positive unsupported revenue figures. I would have to wonder if Monavie would of jumped all over a website that purported specific renevue numbers that demonstrated fantastic growth vs a decline even if those numbers were extremely false. Would you be taking the same stance that that individual broke the law by sharing those numbers, even if the number where made up and over-blown?? Of course this whole matter would be mute if Monavie was to go public, but until then, I think we will see an on-going discussion. Again, appreciate your site. Very interesting information – thanks!

      • Doug,
        Thank you for taking time to comment. Let me see if I can clarify a few of my positions and answer the excellent questions you raise.
        1. Yes, I have a problem with confidential and proprietary information purportedly being leaked to the public. I am the same way when top secret military information is stolen and leaked to the public also. There is a fiduciary responsibility that may have been breached in this situation, which may be criminal and at the very least civil.
        2. When the company issues an official statement of growth or decline, then it is free game to be used as the public sees fit. The company was very good at keeping their IDS (Income Disclaimer Statement) up to date in 2009, and issuing their financial numbers was not seen as an "enticement" to join. As a matter of fact I have yet to hear the company use their financial numbers as an enticement for recruiting. However, if they were to publicly use these numbers to "entice" people to join, then they will be walking a fine line based on federal regulations.
        3. If distributors hype financial information or worse yet, fabricate information like "MonaVie is Debt Free." This is completely false and I have come down hard of reps who proclaim these words. Distributors using any form of personal financial numbers to entice people to join, and at the same time not using the most current IDS (Income Disclosure Statement) at the same time to show the average incomes, is illegal.
        4. I do not have any issues with Direct Selling News publishing the official numbers from 2009. the article is very clear on how these numbers are obtained. Since you had to ask the question "How can anyone trust these numbers" it is very clear you do not know the folks who own DSN, otherwise that would not be a question. Now if you are indicating that the numbers may be fabricated by MonaVie corporate, then I do not think you realize what the founders have to lose if they were found to criminally be misleading their venture capital partners.
        5. My issue has never been with legitimate information being shared and used as talking points. However, when anonymous information is used to harm the average distributor in any company I get very protective. If anonymous information is published and the publisher has not done everything in their power to validate the information before it is published, then it does raise the question as to the intent of the publisher in publishing the info.
        6. you are correct I do not have any problem receiving information from legitimate sources "pros or con" when it comes from reliable sources. Since I only take information from the company or 3rd party sources whose reputation is imprecate, I do not see your issue. I can also tell you have not read all the other posts I have done on MonaVie and their top distributors. Some have been positive, others have been critical. At no time have I been hit with any legal action because I am very careful to know my facts, and document my sources.
        All the companies know I am an MLM Nomad! I am not building any company, and the companies and distributors know my agenda.
        7. Ted has published more positive information about MonaVie than critical. As a matter of fact this is the first critical article. I personally do not believe it is so much the numbers, as it is the source of the information. Now that Ted has made it clear the information is from a May 2010 article on The Fraud Files site, MonaVie may move their focus to Terry.
        But you are correct, it is the source of the info I care about, not the figures. A decline in quarterly numbers in this economy, especially in the first quarter of the year, when traditionally direct selling is slow anyway doesn;t bother me at all. Lord knows the retail industry shows a loss every year, until Black friday. If people know this niche, then they know the trends.
        8. I can't put words in the mouth of Dallin or the founders. But I can say, that based on current SEC and FTC regulations, if MonaVie were to see false numbers they would be all over it, so they did not get hit with an investigation. Or have the IRS come running.
        The funny thing is, if folks were to review Ted's site and look at the income earned by the top distributors of MonaVie, they might be able to start doing their own math to see if the company is up or down.
        9. If a company is falsifying their books and an insider knows without a shadow of a doubt those books are cooked. Then there are laws in place at both a state and federal level to protect the whistle blower. In that case the criminal is not the whistle blower, unless they do not go to the authorities and present the facts. In a case like that legal authorities will hire someone like Terry from the Fraud Files to do a forensic review of the books.
        Now if the person on the inside doesn't go to the legal authorities, and instead anonymously send the information to some reporter or blogger, then they have broke the law themselves by taking inside information which has not been proven to be legit, or doctored, in other words they have broken the chain of evidence, then they must be held responsible. It at a later date it is still found the company is cooking their books, they also will be held responsible for a different crime.
        You bring up great points, and if MonaVie is planning on doing an IPO, then they will have to make sure they get to the bottom of this issue.
        Here is a question for everyone… Why publish numbers from the first quarter, of the year now that we are in the 3rd quarter of the year? these number went public in May, and no one cared. It was not until Ted a well respected MLM blogger takes the numbers to the average distributor that people got upset.
        Personally I do not think it is the numbers that got them upset. I think they held Ted to a higher standard, and this caused them to wonder about his agenda.

        • I will address a couple of points above:
          1) You are right that its wrong. However it is out there. Dallin Larsen didn't seem to say the numbers were wrong and he had the chance. Discussion should move on from whether the leak was right or wrong to whether it was accurate. As Zeb pointed out the legality of the leak is of interest only to MonaVie executives. The accuracy of the link is what the public is interested in.
          2) It looks like the company WAS good at updating the IDS until the middle of 2009. I had heard that they previously updated their IDS every six months. I haven't been able to verify this since I can't see a history of MonaVie Income Disclosure Statement releases. However, if it's true, MonaVie missed both its end of 2009 and its mid 2010 IDS release. If it supposed to be a yearly release, they have significantly missed their 2010 release with it being the 4th quarter of 2010 now.
          It is interesting that the last IDS release was just around the time that interest in MonaVie started to fade (see my comment above for the evidence of that). I think it is reasonable to ask whether MonaVie is reluctant to put out the next IDS because of the decline that is mentioned. If it showed growth, wouldn't they have published it as soon as possible?
          3) Many distributors use the "debt-free" or "fastest company to a billion dollars" claim. You are correct that this is wrong. However, it continues to happen and MonaVie does nothing to correct this behavior. Dallin Larsen in Newsweek said that he can't herd the cats. However, MonaVie unleashed these cats on the world. Why aren't they responsible for solving it? There is a very easy solution available: distribute the product through traditional means. If you have another solution, other than individually herding these cats (which he has admitted doesn't work), please propose it.
          5) Does the intent of the publisher matter? The relevant point again is the accuracy of the data. Since Larsen didn't seem to deny its accuracy, we should probably conclude it is accurate. If it is accurate, then it is a GOOD thing for distributors that information was released. This way distributors have more information to make their decisions. Making more information to the public is a good thing…. it isn't like the military, where releasing secrets compromises public safety.
          I fail to see the harm that is being done here.
          Perhaps some people care about Ted. I don't know Ted from Fred or Ned. I care about the numbers. Something that gives me more information is more important to me than someone (Ted, I guess) who seems to report about MonaVie. It's like caring more about the sports reporter than the actual story. Here the story is compelling enough that the sports reporter is of little interest.

          • Concerned Citizen,
            All very valid points, and I want to thank you for addressing them as you have. One item you mention which does have me concerned, is the IDS. As we both know this beyond anything else is a good indication, incomes may have gone down and the company doesn't want to draw attention to it. Some might say, the incomes have gone down because large teams have left the company, and others will say it is a straight-line decline in overall volume. To me it is the same, if incomes are down, then so is volume.
            Randy Larsen has stated he expects 1/2 of the "20 billion in 20 years" they are aiming for, will come from the pacific rim. The question this raises is where the other 10 billion going to come from?
            This "Debt Free" crap bugs me as well. In the specific issue of MonaVie, there are plenty of press reports talking about all the VC money the company has received. If people fully understand what a Venture Capitalist is, then they would understand just because the money given to the company is called an investment, doesn't mean someone can't call it due!
            My stance on the publishing of the data, is not to deny the accuracy. As a matter of fact, based on Dallin's answers, like you I also assumed the data for the first quarter was true. My point is that someone which has the fiduciary responsibility to protect this proprietary information sent it anonymously (afraid I'm sure of some for of retribution) to an outside source. How would you feel, if you learned someone from inside MonaVie or any corporation, took the the LOS (Line of Sponsorship) including all personal info (SSN,Name,Address,email, phone, etc) and sent it to a 3rd party, and this information was published?
            When security of financial or personal information is breached, then we have an issue.
            In this case Ted wasn't really the issue. Except for the fact, he published these numbers in late Summer, when they were for the first quarter. If you look at Ted's site, and you review the amount of money he shows the top leaders of MonaVie are earning currently, we may be able to see if the company is growing or declining. And even a 20% decline in a company which has purported to grow 100% annually from day one, is a small decline.
            Without a doubt this is a story we will all watch, and in a few months when the new Direct Selling Top 100 comes out, we'll know for sure 🙂
            Great comment, thanks for taking the time to write it.
            Living An Epic Adventure,
            Troy

          • “My stance on the publishing of the data, is not to deny the accuracy. As a matter of fact, based on Dallin’s answers, like you I also assumed the data for the first quarter was true. My point is that someone which has the fiduciary responsibility to protect this proprietary information sent it anonymously (afraid I’m sure of some for of retribution) to an outside source. How would you feel, if you learned someone from inside MonaVie or any corporation, took the the LOS (Line of Sponsorship) including all personal info (SSN,Name,Address,email, phone, etc) and sent it to a 3rd party, and this information was published? When security of financial or personal information is breached, then we have an issue.”
            How long are you going to continue beating this straw man? First, you invented the scenario in which you alleged that that someone violated a non-disclosure agreement; now you are saying that someone violated a fiduciary responsibility, and you are even going a step further and inventing a scenario whereby some fictitious individual is giving away people’s social security numbers. I’ll remind you once again that it is not responsible reporting when you INVENT the news. No suspect has been identified; the company has not claimed that there has been an inside leak, nor have they even alluded to the possibility that someone violated a contractual obligation to not disclose the information. For all you know, someone with no relation to Monavie could have found the document containing the sales data left behind on a photocopier at Kinko’s. Your logic is so blatantly flawed as to be laughable. You may as well be asking “how would you feel if the guy who leaked this information burnt down Monavie’s headquarters” – a form of logical fallacy known as the “slippery slope” argument. One shouldn’t make irresponsible allegations or invent conspiracies in the absence of evidence. That is not reporting — it is dishonest propagandizing and fear mongering.
            And you have yet to admit your mistakes with regard to the dates of Dallin Larsen's tenure at DEI and his responibilities as sales VP — again, evidence of shoddy reporting and disregard for the truth.

          • Zeb, I have made myself clear with you, this is not about me. I'll continue to give you a platform, because I believe in your right to voice your opinion. But, you'll have to do it by yourself, because I personally don't care about your opinion of me or Dallin.
            Living An Epic Adventure,
            Troy

  1. Conspicuously absent from Mr. Larceny's reply was a clear statement that those declining revenue figures were inaccurate. Instead he beats around the bush using innuendo about exaggeration and that sales are up in some markets and down in others, but he didn't say that the reported sales figures are incorrect. Wouldn't that be the obvious response if the data were in fact false? How hard is it to say "the data presented were grossly inaccurate and do not evern remotely reflect Monavie's current financial situation". I read Larceny's comments essentially as an admission of guilt, buried beneath his usual fork-tongued BS of course.

    • Zeb,
      Thanks for commenting. A few questions for you so we can get on the same page.
      1. Do you know what quarter the purported revenue figures are for?
      2. Do you feel that the person who "may" have taken private confidential information and made it public should be held responsible?
      3. Do you feel a crime has been committed by the original "anonymous" person?
      4. Why are you a Dallin basher? You credibility will go up if you explain why you are angry.

      • 1. Nope, haven't a clue what quarter the figures are for.
        2. There’s no point in making baseless assumptions or speculating about "maybes". There is no evidence that any impropriety led to the release of those sales figures, so why go searching for scapegoats? Even if someone released the data who wasn't supposed, I couldn't care less about going after them — it's a minor petty issue of relevance only to the Monavie execs, but it's none of my concern. Besides, I, like many people who don't have an ounce of sympathy for the Monavie organization.
        3. No I assume innocence until proven guilty, and in this case, not only is there no proof of guilt, there isn’t even any evidence that a crime has taken place. Again, why bother chasing ghosts and looking for scapegoats?
        4. You can call me a "Dallin basher" if you wish. IMO, I am just a well-informed individual who happens to be aware of his past track record scamming people with Royal Tongan Limu juice when he was exec VP of Dynamic Essentials, that is until he helped got the company shut down by the FDA for illegal marketing. He pumped that "opportunity" like it was going to be the biggest thing since Microsoft — flushed down the toilet because of malfeasance and incompetence. Larsen's new company, Monavie, is no different. It's almost the exact same modus operandi as Royal Tongan Limu, complete with scads of illegal disease cure claims and misrepresentations about the products. If Monavie doesn't get heavily sanctioned or shut down soon, I would be astonished. They certainly deserve to be, given the way they have operated to date. Lastly, I find Larsen’s public self-aggrandizement, pomposity, arrogance, and general lack of modesty to be utterly repulsive; it is mind boggling that anyone could think otherwise. He behaves like Nero, meanwhile his minions are getting bled to death.
        The only reasons I can see for getting involved in selling this stuff are sheer desperation (eg, the average distributor) or outright greed (the average kingpin). The former I might be able to forgive, but not the latter.

        • Zeb,
          1. If you read the report, you would know the figures were from the first quarter, and the original blog post did not come out until May, and the second blog article came out in August. Seems this is an important aspect of writing any article. Or even in the case of writing a comment, seems the facts should be important.
          2. There is plenty of evidence. My statement was not coming from a “baseless assumption.” I’ll accept the fact you may not realize that private companies do not release their financial statements to anyone except to lenders, equity partners, and legal authorities. In all of those cases, the financial statement is provided after non-disclosures are signed. In the case of employees, ALL information is propitiatory and not for public viewing or consumption. Breach of fiduciary responsibility for any reason, outside of notifying legal authorities of a crime or the intent of a crime is illegal at both a state and federal level. So tell me how you can say this doesn’t matter? You approved of illegal activities? By the way, why do you not feel sorry for MonaVie?
          3. Again, it seems you do not fully understand the way private companies operate. Plus you do not seem to care if innocent distributors who are trying to build a business are harmed because of some private vendetta. It seems you have a personal bone to pick. Please feel free to share so we can better understand where you are coming from.
          4. Are you saying that Dallin all by himself caused the issues surrounding the Royal Tongan Limu Juice? Even after he left the company? Seriously, he was the Exec VP, not the owner of the company. Seems more than one person would have been involved. By the way, he had left long before the FTC closed down the company. Could it have been he warned folks, they did not listen and he left? I don’t know, I am just asking. By the way MonaVie is not “his new company” Monarch Health Sciences was the company, and they renamed it MonaVie.
          What cure claims are you referring at MonaVie? I have reviewed this company inside and out, and have never seen any cure claims. If you can produce these claims, I will report on this issue. As for misrepresentation, MonaVie has terminated folks for misrepresenting the company and products.
          Dallin is a unique leader. But when it comes to being an egomaniac (my word to sum up what you wrote) he is pretty modest compared to some of the top field leaders. 🙂
          You did provide great value in your comments, I hope you can provide additional info for our community.

          • 1. Red herring. Don’t really care. The sales figures, for what they are worth, were published with appropriate disclaimers. I don’t give the data more credence than it warrants and it’s not incumbent on me to defend it . Larsen had the chance to set the record straight but was ambiguous and evasive instead. That’s an epic fail on his part.
            2. Another red herring. The legal implications of releasing the sales figures are the least of my concerns. It is of no consequence to me, and in light of Monavie’s rampant transgressions, I simply see it as reaping a tiny bit of what they sowed. The original source that might have leaked the data (if a leak in fact occured) has not been identified and there is no evidence an infraction has taken place; and if there has been an infraction it would be a civil dispute, not a criminal act. The issue of retribution is trivial and should be of concern only to Monavie’s execs and their overworked lawyers.
            3. I understand full well how private companies are run. I don’t understand the conclusion that distributors would necessarily be harmed by the release of the sales figures. The data shouldn’t have any impact at all on retail sales, because someone who merely drinks the juice doesn’t care if Monavie’s Q1 revenue is down x%.
            Does the potential for harm to distributor’s lie in the possibility that new prospects might be less inclined to sign up to sell the juice if they think that the company is tanking? What if the figures are correct? Isn’t it better for the public at large to be able to make informed decisions instead of jumping blindly off a cliff? Should I care more about the public welfare or avenging a potential breach of Monavie’s corporate secrets? People can decide for themselves what the sales figures mean and whether they are reliable.
            4. You are wrong on several counts, but I don’t like moving targets so I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you just lay out your facts, specify the dates, provide whatever evidence you have to support what you claimed about Larsen and Limu, and then I’ll prove to you conclusively that you were wrong in your assumptions.
            It’s another red herring to raise the question about whether “Dallin all by himself caused the issues surrounding the Royal Tongan Limu Juice”. It’s disingenuous to split hairs about the exact percentage of responsibility that he bears personally; he CLEARLY bears a LOT of responsibility. The FTC did not close down Limu, the FDA did. Larsen did not leave “long before (they) closed down the company” — that’s just 100% false and I can easily prove it. I'll assume good faith (rather than accuse you of spreading blatantly false apologist fairy tales) and give you the opportunity to admit the mistake and retract the statement.
            If you are unaware that Monavie is ROUTINELY being sold on the basis of illegal and blatantly false medical treatment claims, then you are lagging WAY behind in your research on this company. The examples are so commonplace and widely referenced that it’s virtually impossible to not trip over them. If MonaVie has "terminated folks for misrepresenting the company and products” as you allege, perhaps you can some concrete examples to back it up.
            You say that if I “can produce these claims” that you “will report on this issue”. I could easily spend an entire week posting examples but before I bother, I’ll wait to see your reply and then I’ll determine if it’s worth my time posting examples here instead of just giving the information directly to the FDA and FTC. At thi spoint, I have ample reason to seriously doubt your impartiality.
            “Dallin is a unique leader. But when it comes to being an egomaniac (my word to sum up what you wrote) he is pretty modest compared to some of the top field leaders.”
            Larsen’s megalomania is so in-your-face that it’s impossible to miss. He’s not even remotely subtle about it, and I can provide ample evidence if need be. Larsen doesn't get a free pass just because there may be bigger egomaniacs in the MLM biz.
            Larsen touts his illusory track record of success in MLM, but the truth is that he failed miserably at Dynamic Essentials and then failed miserably at Monarch Health Sceinces selling diet aids before he revived Royal Tongan Limu version 2.0 (aka Monavie). Now Monavie is following the same basic marketing strategy (i.e., snakeoil) and will probably crash and burn just like Limu did.

          • Zep,
            There are no red herrings on my part at all. I have one very clear objective, and that is to make sure facts, and evidence is presented in a fair and balance manner so distributors, potential distributors and outside critics can come and find answers to the rumors which seem to run like crazy around the world wild web. Now let me see if I need to address any of the other items you have raised or answered.
            1. I respectfully disagree with you on the disclaimers. Especially in Ted's report. He did not give credit to the original post where he found the figures. And the original reporter, based on her bias attitude towards the direct selling industry, decided to report the figures like a TMZ reporter, and did not seem care that it came from an anonymous source. Which I have to admit is strange based on the fact she is a highly respected expert in her field. When peoples lives are attached to information, then the info should be validated before a report is published. At the very least contact the company and report, they would not comment.
            2. I understand you do not like MonaVie or Dallin, However, if someone on the inside will take private corporate data and send it to strangers. How do you or I know they have not done the same thing with the private distributor database. I take corporate and personal privacy seriously, and based on current federal laws, taking private financial data of a company or individual and sending it to 3rd parties is illegal. Not a civil matter by a criminal felony charge. Again no red herring intended. In my book all of this goes towards the same goal of protecting the distributors by providing accurate information, good, bad or ugly. But the info must be accurate.
            3. Since you seem to have been around the direct selling industry for a while, you should realize that when any information of a critical nature goes live, it can halt all business, and in some cases cause distributors to quit or leave a company. If the information is correct, then it should be published, disused and hard questions asked. But when something is reported based on a personal vendetta, or a biased opinion, and the truth is not even a concern, then I have an issue with it. Right now Middle America is doing their best to earn any income they can. If MonaVie is a fit for some folks, and no legal entity has launched and investigation or closed them down based on validated information, then we as reporters should not allow our biased opinions or vendettas to enter into our reports.
            4. I think you read my comment incorrectly. I was very clear on what I thought I knew. I did not state I knew anything as 100% facts. This is why I asked you to provide documentation, or websites, so I could investigate, and report. this is not about a moving target. It is about you, as someone who seems to have inside information to past situations providing the evidence for me to follow and report on. If you do not feel it is important, I fully understand.
            I do not use red herrings in my reporting. But I do use the law of logic, and when the evidence doesn't line up with the story, then I realize there is more than meets the eye. I have yet to find any one person who brings down a company. In every case of corporate fraud, there is always a team of people who were involved. Especially in the direct selling profession.
            Again if you feel the story warrants, then please provide evidence for me to investigate. My email is TroyDooly@MLMHelpDesk.com

          • 1. “He did not give credit to the original post where he found the figures. And the original reporter, based on her bias attitude towards the direct selling industry, decided to report the figures like a TMZ reporter, and did not seem care that it came from an anonymous.”
            I’ve read your posts about Monavie and I hate to say it but you fail to even meet the journalistic caliber of TMZ. To call what you do reporting is to equate an infomercial with journalism. I say that not to be mean but to remind you about humility and pots calling kettles black.
            2. “if someone on the inside will take private corporate data and send it to strangers. How do you or I know they have not done the same thing with the private distributor database. I take corporate and personal privacy seriously, and based on current federal laws, taking private financial data of a company or individual and sending it to 3rd parties is illegal. Not a civil matter by a criminal felony charge. Again no red herring intended. In my book all of this goes towards the same goal of protecting the distributors by providing accurate information, good, bad or ugly. But the info must be accurate.”
            Like I said before, worrying about protecting Monavie’s revenue secrets is not serving the public interest; particularly if the information being withheld could otherwise enable prospective and current distributors to make better-informed decisions. You completely ignore this fact while arguing that your concern is for the distributors, and that seems very hypocritical. There is no suspect and there is no evidence of wrongdoing that we know of. Until there is, I have no interest in belaboring this point any further. Like I said, I give the data only as much merit as it deserves, and everyone else can do the same.
            3. “If the information is correct, then it should be published, disused and hard questions asked. But when something is reported based on a personal vendetta, or a biased opinion, and the truth is not even a concern, then I have an issue with it.”
            So simply ignore it then. What you choose to believe or not believe about someone else’s data is really none of my concern. As it stands, you don’t know for sure that it’s accurate and you don’t know for sure that isn’t. You certainly don’t know that it was based on a personal vendetta or a biased opinion, as you put it. Dallin Larsen was probed for a response and he chose to sidestep the allegations. He’s either very bad at PR and damage control, or he’s tacitly acknowledging that the data are accurate. Either way, you can make your own decision about how much credence to give the story.
            “Right now Middle America is doing their best to earn any income they can. If MonaVie is a fit for some folks, and no legal entity has launched and investigation or closed them down based on validated information, then we as reporters should not allow our biased opinions or vendettas to enter into our reports.”
            That sounds like an argument from someone who is more interested in keeping rats from leaving a sinking ship than reporting information and enabling all those hard working Americans to make well-informed decisions of their own accord. If Monavie is tanking and that detail is relevant to someone’s decisions about their future, then I side with the little guy. If they have a better option than Monavie, then it’s their right to choose it. Let the free market rule. And don’t assume that all the distributors aren’t as smart as you or me; they can look at the story and give it as much weight as they think it deserves. When they see that Dallin didn’t deny it, they’ll probably assume that the data are accurate. Whose fault is that?
            4. “I think you read my comment incorrectly. I was very clear on what I thought I knew. I did not state I knew anything as 100% facts.”
            I can read you like a book and I know exactly what you said. Now you are backtracking and not being honest.
            This is what I wrote initially:
            “…his past track record scamming people with Royal Tongan Limu juice when he was exec VP of Dynamic Essentials, that is until he HELPED (caps added for emphasis) get the company shut down by the FDA for illegal marketing.”
            This was you straw man counterargument:
            “Are you saying that Dallin ALL BY HIMSELF (caps added for emphasis) caused the issues surrounding the Royal Tongan Limu Juice? Even after he left the company?”
            Notice that I came nowhere close to saying that “Dallin all by himself caused the issues” and I made it clear in my counter-reply that it’s not relevant whether he was 25%, 50%, or 100% responsible. He bears enough responsibility that this is a massive brown skid mark on his reputation, and he doesn’t disclose this detail or even MENTION DEI in any of the Monavie, materials that hype his allegedly outstanding track record. He’s withholding key information about malfeasance. And that should bother you if you really care about the distributors as you say you do. I was very clear in what I wrote and you tried to twist my words and invent a straw man that you could beat down. That’s not “reporting” and that sure ain’t honest.
            But your reply was also dishonest on other more serious levels. First, you essentially stated as FACT that Dallin had left the company when the “issues” with DEI took place.
            “…even after he left the company? Seriously…by the way, he had left long before the FTC closed down the company.”
            You allege that you care about facts and truth, and yet you have no evidence to support you claims and you still didn’t provide it after I asked you already to back up your assertion. Note also that you misreported that the FTC shut them down when in fact it was the FDA. You can’t rip on people for shoddy journalism and poor fact checking when you are just as guilty if not more so. Do you even have a clue about the chronology of events? Have you read ANYTHING about it? What are your sources? Did Dallin tell you he left before the “issues” took place? DEI was cited by the FDA in 2002. Why do you believe (and believe it you must because you stated it as fact) that Larsen left before the “issues” took place? All of the relevant information is in the public domain, reliably backed up by easily verifiable facts that can be found if you make an effort and know where to look. If you want to wear the “reporter” hat, try doing some research, and if you have trouble verifying any of this, I’ll spoon feed them to you if need be.
            “Could it have been he warned folks, they did not listen and he left?”
            It’s irresponsible for a “reporter” to invent such a theory in the absence of any supporting facts and then throw it out on the table for public consumption. I could just as easily ask you “is it possible Dallin Larsen eats live babies for breakfast” and it would be only slightly less intellectually dishonest.
            “…he was the Exec VP, not the owner of the company. Seems more than one person would have been involved.”
            What exactly is your forte? Saying how things “seem” or reporting facts? You seem to be unsure yourself. In what way does it “seem” that more than one person was involved? Why not just say who else you think was involved instead of playing possum? Do you understand now why I said upfront that I don’t want to chase moving targets? This is a great example. Do you even know what an executive VP of sales does? Apparently not or you wouldn’t be trying to deflect blame as though Larsen was just a lowly minion following orders. Do you know what Larsen’s position was at USANA? Exactly the same — executive VP of sales. He brags ad nauseum in his bio about how instrumental he was in that role in training distributors, drafting the marketing plan, and dramatically increasing company revenue. He was the highest paid employee at USANA and a major insider shareholder as well. Do you recognize the inconsistency when one claims responsibility for a company’s success while serving as sales VP but then denies responsibility for failure in the identical role at a different company? He can’t have it both ways and he can’t avoid taking responsibility for the demise of DEI.
            As for your alleged lack of awareness about the marketing of Monavie using illegal disease treatment claims, I have to wonder about your method of reporting. Do you just sit there and wait for people to tell you things so that you can report them or do you actually make an effort to do research and answer questions on your own? If the later were the case, you wouldn’t even have to ask me to provide examples for you. Go to Google, pick a disease name, pair it with Monavie, and search. There is more evidence out there then any reasonable person would even need in order to be convinced.

          • Zeb,
            1. This isn't about me. This is about MonaVie, the distributors, and reporting on specific facts, which can be verified.
            As for humility, there is a great book called "Humility, by Andrew Murrey" everyone might want to read.
            2. Based on your statement "this sounds like an argument to keep rats from leaving a sinking ship." we'er done with is personal vendetta and propaganda.
            Although there are always those who can abuse a company and over hype the business and the product, the majority of distributors in any company are great folks.
            Just because you did not succeed or someone you know did not succeed doesn't mean all of direct selling or the distributors are bad. More specifically just because you hate Dallin and want to see him fail, doesn't mean all MonaVie distributors are rats.
            As for the rest of you comment… Again this is not about me.

      • “This isn’t about me. This is about MonaVie, the distributors, and reporting on specific facts, which can be verified.”
        Exactly, and you reported that Dallin left DEI before their legal issues with the Feds arose. That’s FALSE. When I told you that you were wrong and I asked you to check the facts, you did not correct the error, retract your statement, or attempt to support it with facts.Now you are part of the problem because you are purposely disseminating misinformation. That make you an apologist; a liar in fact; certainly not a reporter.
        “Although there are always those who can abuse a company and over hype the business and the product, the majority of distributors in any company are great folks.”
        Completely irrelevant — misdirection and puffery. Was anyone even remotely discussing whether there are “great folks” in MLM? We were in fact talking about MV sales data and Dallin Larsen’s tainted track record prior to Monavie and his failure to disclose the information to those to whom it is most certainly relevant.
        “Just because you did not succeed or someone you know did not succeed doesn’t mean all of direct selling or the distributors are bad.”
        Well that’s just the ultimate straw man argument isn’t it — a clear capitulation in the face of an unwinnable argument. Once again, you call yourself a reporter, and yet you throw out entirely baseless irrelevant speculation like this? Where is your source for this accusation?
        “More specifically just because you hate Dallin and want to see him fail, doesn’t mean all MonaVie distributors are rats.”
        He already failed…TWICE! And now you are simply throwing out more straw men arguments and trying to redirect the debate to something entirely irrelevant – i.e., saying that I want Dallin to fail and that all MV distributors are rats. The only thing I said that could even remotely lead you to this unsupportable conclusion is that the products are being marketed through the use of illegal disease treatment claims. If you are truly concerned about reporting the facts and the welfare of the distributors, then illegal marketing should concern you too because it threatens to reduce Monavie to rubble in a manner akin to what happened to DEI. If people’s livelihoods are at stake, you owe it to them to do a more thorough and responsible job of reporting the facts.

    • Concerned Citizen,
      I see you point, and if all one is looking at is traffic to one site, and not all 11 corporate owned sites and all the top team sites it looks like a boat load of less traffic. However, when you add MonaVie to the niche and compare you get a better idea of the trend.
      Also, MonaVie launched their own online marketing system during this time, and beta tested it internationally. So, I guess we'll all know more in October.
      Thanks for sharing.

      • You made it sound like the website picked and chose one site (MonaVie.com) to illustrate its point. It was the main corporate website. I just looked at MyMonaVie.com and it looked even worse.
        I'm not sure you can just add-in the creation of additional websites and call that "legitimate interest." That's not comparing apples to apples in the same way that comparing MonaVie.com traffic to MonaVie.com traffic.
        It seems like we know enough from a 18 month trend… one data point (October) isn't going to significantly change anything… if it changes at all.

        • Concerned Citizen,
          My only point here is the fact, traffic ranking to a specific website is not any evidence period on if a company is in decline or not. All websites are used when we create analytical data for our clients. This includes their websites, team websites, social profiles and the list goes on and one. Once all date is gathers, and analyzed, we are then able to track where the online sales are coming from, and where there is a raise or decline from each site.
          In the case of direct selling companies who allow their top leaders to create online systems, the corporate site may get less traffic, and may not even rank on the front page of the search engines.
          As for the 18 months data point I would respectfully disagree. Case in point 18 months ago, Google was the major player in search, and websites were the main destination. Today, Facebook is the #1 "search engine" and the destinations are the distributors and company pages inside of the platform. Just this one change in the search patterns of the end user will cause the traffic patterns on Alexa or Compete to drastically change, going down, while the sales of the company could be through the roof.
          Hope this makes my point a little clearer.
          Living An Epic Adventure,
          Troy

  2. Hi Troy,
    Just a couple of minor corrections. Amway's media campaign is not worldwide, it is focused on North America. Also, while the media campaign will have undoubtedly had an effect, much of the dramatic increase in traffic to amway.com is due to the phasing out of quixtar.com and the launching of the new amway.com site to serve North America. The ad campaigns also started with the reintroduction of the Amway name to North America (as Amway Global) in 2008, not March 2010. Indeed next month the company has continued that process, dropping "global" from the name in North America and reverting to Amway, in line with the rest of the world.

    • Acitually if you dig a little deeper you will find Amway Global has a huge and heavy campagin going on in India and South America, not just the USA. The new North America campain was launched in March of this year.
      I do agree 100% the phasing out of Quixtar has impacked the overall jump in traffic, thank you for brings up that fact.
      By the way I pull my facts Amways own press releases. and although I am known to be wrong sometimes, based on the timeline I am using, and the facts supplied, plus what you have added I stand my what I wrote.
      Amway New Ad Campaign – Match 15th 2010
      Here is one on my comments about India, where Amway makes it clear at least one of their brands is #1 in India. Just from the numbers you will gain some traffic to the mother site. Again you see this was release in March of this year.
      I also believe part of the traffic boost may have also come from the Wolrd Cut exposure, where Amway's own South Africa team was playing.

      • Amway India has been doing TV advertisements for many years, as they have in a number of other markets – and they promote the Amway affiliates website, not amway.com.. The March 15 Amway North America press release was about a new campaign, following on from previous campaigns. You'll note the release you link to says, as I said – "As with the previous national advertising campaign" Amway's Nutrilite brand is #1 in many countries, indeed it's #1 globally, some 3 times the size of it's nearest competitor. It's been that way for many years.
        Amway did not have a "South Africa team" at the world cup any more than every other Amway employee in their 70+ affiliates had a "team" at the world cup, as did you and I. That link you give was to a blog article about Amway SA employees supporting their local team, playing in the World Cup hosted in their country.
        The advertising campaigns would (hopefully) drive some traffic to the site. Other factors last year included the Orlando Magics appearance in the NBA finals. There'll probably also be a small boost from the soon to be opened Amway Center in Orlando.
        Still, all of these have been insignificant compared to the traffic from migrating from quixtar.com – http://siteanalytics.compete.com/quixtar.com+amwa