Thread: Melaleuca
View Single Post
  #108  
Old 05-02-2007, 09:48 PM
Soapboxmom's Avatar
Soapboxmom Soapboxmom is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 1,366
Re: Warning!! Beware Of Melaleuca!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by shamus
I sure did! And I'm very proud to say it again!!

FACT:
Iíve dealt with this man one on one. I know what this man is about. You, on the other hand, have never even had any dealings with this company, and certainly have had none with Frank Vandersloot himself.

As for the rest of the trash you posted...

ROFLOL Is that the best you can do? Quoting a very dishonest reporter with no integrity at all?

Someone who interviewed Frank Vandersloot under the pretense of telling the Melaleuca story, but thought it would make a better story if she changed a few (most) of the facts and threw in her opinionated slurs?

Someone whose printed article is nothing like the article that the very deceptive Phyllis Berman told Frank Vandersloot was being published?
If the Forbes article was as you say, then why hasn't Frank gone to court. The facts would win out and a retraction would be printed. Forbes is an excellent resource and I suspect Frank is full of sour grapes because the real truth behind Melaleuca isn't very flattering. If we believe Frank that 20,000 reps make a primary living from the company then we need a total of 1,492,537 reps total. I am sure Frank gave the number of 20,000. He just never expected anyone to apply it to the earnings tables Melaleuca published in 2004. The math is so simple. 2546 20,000
---------- = -----------------
190,000 1,492,537

Quote:
Someone who dishonestly states only the lowest percentage of commissions that can be earned as THE percentage, as if it is the only percentage?

Someone who claims that ProvexCV (the product she couldn't spell) cost $30, but actually cost $29 at that time?
So, now we are to debate my typing skills and math skills -----you know rounding 29 up to 30?
Quote:
Someone who claims that vendors are selling products?

Someone who claims that everyone signs up to purchase a minimum of $45 each month? There never has been a minimum "dollar" amount. The amount has always been a base point amount.
I have called people receiving a check salesman/representatives/reps etc. Those are generally accepted definitions. Salesman are paid commissions. Dell sales people do not stock products or deliver them. The computers, servers, software and other products are delivered to and set up for the customer by Dell. The point is who participates in the pay plan.

I think we have discussed ad nausem the base points. I said correctly it equates to around $50 dollars. Math includes estimation and rounding.
Quote:
Someone who lied about the percentage paid out in commissions? More than the 50% she claims is paid to marketing executives!
You need to post the exact quote so we can look at the math, but no one has ever come on here and refuted any calculations I have made. One can easily take the earnings table and the company's revenue etc.and make tables that reflect these figures.
Quote:
Someone who tries to lead you to believe that Frank Vandersloot gets 50%? Not only is there less than 50% after commissions, but she seems to be too ignorant to understand that all company expenses also come out of what is left. It is not what Frank Vandersloot gets.
Again you haven't produced the quote so we can see where you are getting this. You are rambling. I take it that you think I said Franky boy gets 50% of the cost of each product in his own pocket. I never said that. How could he? The reps get 49-62%. We must include all the other many aspects of running a business and the cost of such. So, I don't know exacly what Frank gets, but he is doing very well off of the hard work and required purchases of around 200,000.

Quote:
Someone who claims that the big bucks go to the Senior Directors (25 of them she claims) and Executive Directors (90 of them she claims)? Not only are both figures far from being correct, but there are more Senior Directors than Executive Directors. There are also 5 levels between Senior Director and the first Executive Director level that make more than the Senior Director level.
Again we have no quote, so is this Forbes or calculations I made from the Melaleuca earnings table? Anyone with basic math skills can take the percentages Frank puts on the tables posted on the Melaleuca site and come up with numbers of reps at each level if we have a good figure for the total number of reps. I am surprised at how confusing elementary math seems. Please put up the information and we can do the calculations step by step.
Quote:
Oh...I really love this next one. :rolleyes:

Someone who reports an amount of over $1 million each for 3 Presidential Directors in 2003, a newly added level in 2004 that did not even exist in 2003? A level that noone, 3 years after her article, has yet reached? The top marketing executive with Melaleuca as of May, 2007 is a Corporate Director V. Phyliss Berman reported this lie in 2004, yet nobody has yet reached the new level even as of May, 2007.
If Forbes mislabeled poeple you are free to tell us about the few big winners who get the majority of the take. Again if we know revenue and the fact that as Frank said about half of the price of a product is paid out in comissions (49-62%) read 50% will serve the purpose we can easily show how the funds are distributed and what percentage goes to each group in the pay plan. So, again bring us the info and we will look at it again.
Quote:
Oh yes...she got her pack of lies printed in Forbes. And although there were rebuttals, Forbes (most likely with pressure from the dishonest Phyllis) chose to delete them, but not before many of us had a chance to read them.

But then, I suppose she reported what Forbes wanted to hear. After all, it was Forbes that also published the article, "Lying Is Good For You".

And if the truth was known, I'd bet that the lying Phyllis Berman was also paid by a competitor to write the twisted article.
You are free to repost those rebuttals right here on scam.com. All viewpoints are welcome and if I need to correct calculations based on new information I will be happy to do so.

Quote:
You do not know what Frank Vandersloot is worth. Furthermore, you got the $700 million figure from what the lying Phyllis Berman estimates is his share, which she also says is 50%. Go with her erroneous figure and 100% would be $1.4 billion. Wrong!
That article sure has your panties in a wad.
Quote:
I see that you still do not understand the definition of an employee. Melaleuca had somewhere around 1500-1600 employees in 2004, many of which were part time, and those employee salaries have nothing to do with the comp plan for marketing executives. :rolleyes:
http://www.armydiller.com/financial-scam/ic.htm We were looking at the payments to reps. But as you reps are just the gargantuan sales force for Melaleuca and can be fired at any time without cause according to your signed agreement, I would hardly call you independent.
Quote:
The 150,000 figure you got from the lying Phyllis Berman, and you got the 190,000 figure from John Fried...a reporter that doesn't separate his comments from what Frank Vandersloot says, with quotes. So it's anybody's guess who said what in that article. You did not get the figures from Frank Vandersloot. You have no clue how many marketing executives there were in 2004, or in any other year.
So, those reporters just pulled all those numbers out of thin air? I doubt that. That would give Frank something actionable. I think ol' sour grapes Frank just doesn't like the way those numbers look on paper when they are used to calculate earnings and number of reps at each level. His 5x7 matirx doesn't look so attractive when math rears its ugly head.
Quote:
You also do not know what percentage of the total (whatever it was) were ACTIVE as of the time the 2004 Annual Income Statistics were reported. Restated so that maybe...just maybe...you might understand.....you do not know how many of the total (whatever it was) dropped out during the year and were NOT ACTIVE at the end of the year when the stats were published. The report covers all who joined within the last 10 years, and includes ONLY those that were still ACTIVE all 12 months of 2004.
Frank said the tables included folks active for all 12 months and their position held for 4 consecutive months. That seems pretty clear to me. The drop out rate is well known. That silly man has reps boasting a 95% retention rate, which is (laughing) monthly, so that means about half of the customers/special customers drop out every year. Again, math rears its ugly head. I am sure Frank desperately wants to conceal that huge drop out rate. Frank just doesn't like the real numbers being exposed. Marketing Executives, which comprise 80% of those that participate in the pay plan, make the earnings look paltry.
Quote:
So, no...whether either of the figures were right or wrong, neither was correct for purposes of the stats, which are based on ACTIVE customers at the end of the year.

Bottom line, you have no way of knowing the correct numbers, and your twisted figures STILL mean nothing.
Well, if you don't like my calculations based on published numbers, then give us the numbers and your calculations. It is real easy for you to sit there and whine and moan, but folks have a right to know the real facts and figures behind this venture before they waste precious time and money. So, since you are so close to Frank and so incredibly knowledgeable we will anxiously await your enlightening figures that will of course be a marked improvement over mine, no doubt.

Soapboxmom

Reply With Quote