IBOAI Board of Directors Calls MonaVie Initiative a Publicity Stunt

(this press release just issued)

Grand Rapids, MI -- April 3, 2008 -- The Board of Directors of the Independent Business Owners Association International (http://www.iboai.com), the primary advocacy organization representing hundreds of thousands of independent business owners (IBOs) powered by Quixtar/Amway Global (http://www.quixtar.com), today issued this statement in response to an initiative announced by MonaVie, a direct selling organization that competes with Quixtar/Amway Global.

"The so-called ‘Global Free Agent Initiative’ announced by MonaVie on April 2 is, we believe, nothing more than a publicity stunt, as they cannot actually expect to overturn scores of Court rulings that support the concept of short-term non-compete agreements for independent contractors.  Independent contractors in direct-selling organizations such as Quixtar/Amway Global possess unique knowledge and networks that they have built with the extensive support of their parent organization.  The parent organization, and other independent contractors who do not wish to change their affiliation, deserve a degree of protection when any individual wishes to resign or is terminated from his business.

"There is also no coincidence in the timing of MonaVie’s announcement, coming on the heels of their being joined, with great fanfare, by terminated Quixtar/Amway Global distributor Orrin Woodward.  Woodward, along with certain associates, is already the focus of a lawsuit alleging that he has encouraged thousands of independent contractors to violate their non-compete agreements in order to join with him at MonaVie and in his other business enterprises.  MonaVie is also the target of a similar complaint.   Starting with the day of his termination, Woodward has orchestrated an Internet-centered propaganda campaign which has hurt those to whom he was previously loyal, including thousands of Quixtar/Amway Global independent business owners. 

"It is no coincidence, we believe, that MonaVie is not a member of DSA, the Direct Selling Association (www.dsa.org), and will likely never be while they take this stance in favor of improper and damaging behavior.  We are sure that the DSA itself and Quixtar/Amway Global, the company to whom our independent business owners are contracted, will make their own statements on this matter, but we felt it was critical for us to speak up quickly, and forcefully, so that our marketplace understands what is really happening.  We are not going to let MonaVie, or Mr. Woodward, pull the wool over anyone’s eyes."

Comments

[Chue]

Thanks for clearing up that you never considered us as IBO's just contractors! You stated that the non compete clauses protect those that don't want to leave. How? If they don't want to leave, they don't, non-compete clause or not. IBOAI, you are the one pulling the wool over IBO's, I mean your independent contractors eyes.

[Moderator2: I think you know we meant only in the legal sense, since we were discussing court rulings in that paragraph. The IBOAI is IBOs!

But on to the important part of your question:

The integrity of any MLM business is the line of sponsorship. It's the width and depth of your business. When you drop the non-compete agreement, you free competitive companies and their distributors to come in and rob you of that width and depth and the width and depth of all your downline and upline. Sure, it sounds great to be "FREEEEEEE", but does it sound so good to lose the business you've built because without a non-compete agreement former IBOs are free to raid and rob you? We think you'll find this is one of those "ground-floor" opportunities where whoever proposes it wins all the marbles and then the floor caves in from the melee that follows. Push-come-to-shove, this sounds good for MonaVie, but they wouldn't be saying it if they weren't saying it first, if they felt there was any possibility it would actually happen.]

[Utah]

"with great fanfare, by terminated Quixtar/Amway Global distributor Orrin Woodward. Woodward, along with certain associates, is already the focus of a lawsuit"

Which lawsuit is being discussed?

As you already know, I am not a fan of the Quixtar v Monavie lawsuit, but I feel the PRNEWSWire release that Q/A did was below the belt.

re: Monavie's press release, they didn't mention Q/A, but they are obviously encouraging others in the industry to bag their compete/raid provisions. That release was a lot more civil than Q/A's prnewsire.

Why is this such a big deal?

[Moderator: First, an apology. We posted this message before with a comment indicating that we believed Utah had "taken the pledge" over at the MonaVie initiative site. He did not, it was a case of mistaken identity. That said, Utah, the only big deal, we think, is that there is no way, in fact, that the law is going to change so much as to eliminate non-compete agreements for independent contractors, and therefore the only reason for their "initiative" is to create confusion in the marketplace and distract a lot of people who won't make money with MonaVie after leaving Quixtar.]

[bernsber]

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

[Mij in Jax]

I find it very curious that MonaVie is not a member of DSA, (www.dsa.org). I went to DSA's website and their ethical guidelines seem quite, well, ethical. Why wouldn't MonaVie be willing to run their business by those guidelines.? Especially when they seem like they are trying to recruit from their old Amway/Quixtar groups? If my sponser or other person on my team that I had looked to for leadership did something so untrustworthy as quit and try to lure me to another business along with them, I would have none of it. In over 20 years as an IBO I have seen many, many of these businesses come and go. They seem to be in it for the quick buck, and then another whole group of people are hurt, feel betrayed and turned off of direct selling in general.

[Checkbookpete]

The press release from the IBOAI board (http://www.iboai.com) is right on in that the intention of the non compete is to protect the IBO from those that resign, quit and seem to have an overwhelming desire to do anything to harm Quixtar / Amway Global be it the company or IBO. I for one, appreciate and thank Quixtar / Amway Global (http://quixtar.com) for their forsight. I have 27 years invested into this business and people. Can't imagine the headaches and mess without a non compete. Simply put, keep the malcontent from raiding, stealing and using what ever propaganda to harm someone else's business. Why is this so hard to understand? If the the quitting IBO has landed in the promise land of some other network marketing company, than grow the business with your own sweat and labor instead of being a parasite and free loading from the work of others.

[Knows Better]

That's what I like to see, an association that stands up and fights for its members instead of rolling over or getting involved in in-fighting. Go IBOAI!

[Utah]

re: My post of
April 03, 2008 at 02:11 PM
Thanks for pulling the response. I am doing my best to play by the rules, and I don't want someone to imply otherwise. This blog, Alticor, and Op Zone track blockers by email address. The other sites don't. There are millions of people that live in Utah.

re: Q/A non-compete, no raid. what I object is that it was added to the ROC without me knowing it, and I had no say, nor option to "opt out" like a credit card gives you when they change the rates. That, in my opinion, is the legal hurdle Q/A has.

I don't have trouble with some non-compete or non-raiding provisions, the problem is the length and the specifics. If MonaVie is not going to have them, fine, if others decide they no longer want them, fine.

Many years ago, when I stopped working for my previous boss, and became self-employed, I gave him two weeks notice. He didn't take the full two weeks. I voluntarily did not "raid" clients for 6 months. I did have yellow page ads and a website. I just didn't call up former clients and ask them to come over for 6 months. I figured if he couldn't hang on to them after 6 months, they were fair game. Now that was not a MLM.

My suggestion, would be go go with something different for Q/A. You can't tell from the outside if someone called the former IBO or if the former IBO called them very easily.

I would have no problem with a 3 month non-compete and a 6 month no-raiding policy, provided it was discussed out in the open, and IBOs knew they were signing on to it. The IBOAI would also have to approved it after checking with those they represent.

If someone is living off of the money they get, the 6 month, 2 years is too long.

I also objected to the way the auto renewal was handled this year. I was impressed with the IBOAI response to my complaint, and publicly tried to defend their response.

[Chue]

Dear Moderator2:
I think you are just digging your hole deeper and deeper. You are only confirming that you never really considered us as business owners who were independent, just contractors. It makes me sick. As for the non-compete clause, instead of telling people to leave ("Just Go Team!") and then taking them to court to try to hold them hostage, why not make your opportunity great enough that people want to stay, i.e lower your pricing, make a better compensation plan, and stand up to the corporation for the new IBO, I mean new contractor. (By that, I mean, not folding when the IBOAI council voted UNANIMOUSLY to not change the name from Quixtar to Amway) Again, just make it so people want to stay. Or for those that don't want to, let them leave peacefully and quitely instead of turning it into a public relations nightmare.

[James]

Outstanding!

Seems you have become the kid in the back of the classroom who never has anything nice to say. Do you really think that your spins will ever help you? Face it, people who left are gone for good. This kind of post just causes you to loose more. All these lawsuits and posts you write are just scare tactics to try to keep more people from leaving.

How about writing something constructive. How about refuting the claims made against you in the courts. I haven’t seen anything in the CA court cases refuted. Does this mean they were right? How about helping the people in the field by answering some of those questions? Did you forget about them?

End the madness,

James

[Bridgett]

IBOAI Blog Admin,

Nice to see that you are starting to post people's comments in a timely fashion. This will help drive traffic here and get people to participate.

[Bridgett]

IBOAI,

Thanks for starting to have an active voice online.

You guys have been silent for way too long and have let the idiot critics run the show.

BTW, everyone reading, please know I am literly talking about "idiot critics". If you are not an idiot critic, but instead a "critic" or someone who is "critical", then that term of endearment (idiot critic) is not meant for you.

So don't get your panties in a bunch. Okay? :)

[Utah]

Bridgett, Glad to see your response.
I typically read your posts, as opposed to some that aren't worth reading. I don't always agree, but at least I can typically see where you are coming from.

By the way, the press release that I objected to was not the last IBOAI release. I may not agree with everything that is said, but they raise a valid point.

What I did object to was this:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-18-2008/0004776561&EDATE=

(2 line link, you need both)

That "Quixtar" released.

[Bridgett]

Chue,
Think of it this way...you are an independant contractor (you receive a 1099 from Quixtar/Amway--at least in the U.S.) until you have built a business of some size and value, that you incorporate and become an actual business in the eyes of the IRS. Unitl that time comes, we can go round and round debating semantics. Does it really serve any purpose long-term purpose?

Utah,
Same thing. If one has a tiny business without much volume running through it and with very few people sponsored, then I'm sure one can go off and do some other business without Quixtar/Amway blinking an eye.
I'm sure it's done today, this very minute. That there are IBOs (and former IBOs) who are involved in some other "deal" besides/other than Quixtar/Amway and are "breaking the rules".

These non-competes/non-raiding rules are for the "big" guys--the guys with significant influence with large groups of people--to take notice and pay attention.

**********************************
All that to say that, until one has a business of the magnitude where it matters, I think we're all just wasting a ton of time debating issues that we simply do not have the proper perspective to debate in a manner which really matters.

And it can take us away from doing things that really do matter in life.

It's like a guy asking me how the Leadership Adjustment Bonus is calculated, when he doesn't even know how/is unwilling to place an order.

It's like a gal wanting me to explain all the intricacies of foster sponsoring, when she doesn't even know how/is unwilling to retail a product.

This guy or gal can be brand spankin' new IBOs or have "been around" for 15 years. I like to, rather than get sucked in to conversation like these, I like to step back and ponder, "What is the point of the conversation?"

I've got little children who ask questions and talk incessantly all day long. And as a parent, I've got to have discernment and not want to squelch the inquiring process, not want to silence them. I want to encourage them to question, and think, and articulate themselves and find their voice. But at the same time recognize when there is not value for THEM to be going on and on and on.

I am talking to myself as I sign off for now and go spend some time with my kids. :)

[IBO Forever]

Way to go IBOAI! Two quick things:

1) Why do people who resigned from this business, expect the IBOAI to protect them when they are no longer around?

2) It's nice to see you make a perfectly logical statement about this company's possible motives. Thanks for defending the position of the hundreds of thousands in this business.

[Utah]

Bridgett,
Your post, April 04, 2008 at 02:31 PM, was confusing to me. I specifically said the business I referred to, that I became self-employed with many years ago, was NOT a MLM. I was using it as an example of my feeling of non-competes. That business is not covered within the Q/A non-compete, non-raid Q/A ROC. It is not in violation of Q/A rules. It is not something I can just "sign someone up in".

Now if I were to sign up in xango, or monavie or usanna, or Nu Skin, or any of the 44 active MLMs in Utah - today, April 4th, I would be in violation of Q/A rules. You forget that I live in the MLM capital of the US and have defended Q/A for 16 plus years.

I disagree that I have no clue about the non-compete or non-raid rules based on my experience or those of others I know.

You, on the other hand, have more experience than I do with successful retailing of coreline Quixtar/Amway products by specific individuals. I respect that.

You were also invited to the
http://www.realquixtarblog.com/2008/03/19/Prague-Blog-III.aspx
blog. Which I was not, nor could I have been, as I was swamped at the time.

Me, I tried retailing Gel Bug and Tar remover to businesses one summer in my county, with lousy success. The PV/BV was great. The product was great. My target businesses included asphalt and roofing contractors. Didn't work for me.

When I signed up, it was to buy things from myself, and help others to do so also. Those that didn't want to could be come customers if they wanted. This is no longer promoted as an option by Q/A. It doesn't work when you get rid of the 3% bracket which is what Q/A is doing in other parts of the world.

[Bridgett]

Utah,

I mean absolutely no disrespect to you at all. I used your comment to talk to the world, not just you. Please forgive me if I wasn't clear.

And you are very funny regarding the bug and tar remover. :)

Utah, I am in the same boat as you. I did not get in this biz to retail. When I got started, I had Scrub Buds and Shaq Bars to work with. Hardly exciting. So we (my husband and I), like you, like MILLIONS of people that have come and gone (and some stayed) in this biz, promoted the "do all your shopping this way and show others to do the same!" plan.

And, I ask you, how's THAT plan been going for you? For me, like crap. When I honestly look at all the people we've sponsored. When I look at all the people that have come in and out of our lives, when I face the reality of how people have perverted the Plan over the years (for whatever reason. I don't care why. I'm sure they meant well in the beginning--a desire to make this biz work--but they went about it totally the wrong way, continuing the self-consumption model instead of realizing that THAT model WAS THE PROBLEM), and have bruised the reputation of Amway/Quixtar, I say, YES to the Transformation. I say yes to First Circle.

I get what the Corp is trying to do. I fought this First Circle thing for a LONG time. And now I'm all for it. I look back and I think of the dozens and dozens and DOZENS of people we sponsored. I think, wow, if I started today, 98% of them I would approach as customers with the great products we have today. Most of the people we sponsored said "yes" 'cause my husband (and I to a certain extent) is very likeable. They said "yes" 'cause they wanted to be around him, not because they wanted to do the work a business requires.

But being a Scrub Bud customer wasn't really a swanky option years ago. :) So the only way they could participate in our biz back then was to get sponsored--and then disappear. Or get sponsored and live on hope for how long before they quit?

Utah, I am fortunate that we sponsored someone who sponsored several people who are loyal and who are fighters. They are our Q-12 leg and they just went Ruby last month. So I am very excited for them and their success, their growth is because of First Circle. Teaching retail--and having a BALL doing it.

Do you know there are people out there who really like to sell product? They don't want to sponsor, but they like to sell. We ARE allowed to sponsor people who don't want to sponsor people. We IBOs know that. Yes? :)

Okay. Off the computer and back to my “real” world. :)

[Chue]

IBOAI Board,
What I would like to know how you can say that non-competes are so good for the company based on the history of how Amway came to be. You know as well as I do, that Rich and Jay, the founders of Amway were members of another network marketing company immediately before starting Amway. They didn't like how the people high up in the company were running it and so they left being distributors with that company and started Amway. Has the previous company had a non-compete clause, Amway would never had been started. Please answer that.

[nonprofit]

What we fail to recognize here is this is a country where free will and choice are rights we enjoy. Inventing a guideline then slipping it into an auto renewal is just short of criminal, especially when (as the courts are now putting it) it's one sided. The line of sponsorship didn't exist prior to the IBO building it and if anyone owns it, my opinion is, the IBO who created it does. Somehow Amway's twisted it so that the company who benefits the most financially has the right of ownership. Back to the point, American is founded on the right of free choice, if an IBO believes another opportunity is a better option, they should have the right to leave the business who offers less, no strings attached. After all it's their business, hence the independent part of IBO. Suppliers in business, and that's exactly what Amway is, are often changed for better pricing,etc. Who is Amway to tell an IBO where their best option lies?
Wouldn't it be more logical to alter Amway's business model to make it an opportunity no one would want to walk away from? How great a compensation plan could you have sponsored with the legal fees that have been needlessly spent? Now I'm sure you feel that the business model you present is exceptional, but to borrow a phrase from Tony Blair.....The measure of a business is not how many people are walking away from it, but how many people are trying to get into it. In this case both apply. Basically what you've done is chased away a massive, well trained, dedicated sales force into another MLM. The success they are enjoying could have been yours! Time to shut the barn door, and fix it, before the rest of the herd gets out.
Let me save you millions of dollars. Drop the unenforceable noncompete clause, mediate to stop the lawsuits,(they will all go away with step one), lower prices, and raise your compensation plan. Quit complaining, pointing fingers and fix your business model. Build the field and they will come!

[Moderator: I'm confused. Why do you say the noncompete clause is unenforceable when only one court has found it so and scores of other courts have upheld it? And do you know or realize that, until very recently, TEAM had the same kind of noncompete clause in its required agreement for its members?]

[Utah]

Bridgett,
Thanks for the clarification.

response to
Mij in Jax | April 03, 2008 at 09:23 PM

Since Monavie was on the DSA agenda for March 2007 and then moved to June 2007 to be considered as a member, it looks like Monavie was interested in becoming a member. (Source DSA website).

The obvious question, why they were either dropped from the agenda, pulled out their request, or denied?

It is also obvious if Q/A didn't want Monavie to be a member, the likelihood of it happening would not be very good.

If the only reason that Monavie is not a member of the DSA is the blocking by Q/A, then the IBOAI comment about it isn't fair.

[Moderator: Utah, your message is nothing but speculation -- why don't you go right to the source, DSA, versus speculating? Factually, the DSA has very clear guidelines for membership and none of them include another member's preference. The association would cease to exist if they allowed that to occur.]

[Utah]

Moderator, April 08, 2008 at 09:38 AM comment.

I am glad Q/A is not blocking MonaVie becoming a member of the DSA. I am glad to read that politics are not used in determining whether they would qualify or not. That leaves the choice up to Monavie.

With the 1 year probation like time frame to become a member, I don't know if they are still in the process or not.

I had personally gone to the DSA web site to see that they were on the agenda the two dates I mentioned. Since I am not a DSA member, I was not able to tell anything more. The agendas were not behind the password access, the rest was.

The portion of the statement about the DSA from the IBOAI was, in my opinion, not fair, without my knowing why Monavie was not a member yet, when the had been on the agenda for membership. Obviously, if I could get more info, my opinion might change.

Without being able to read minds, someone would have to speculate as to why Monavie issued the Global Free Agent Initiative. As far as I know, they are trying to encourage other companies to get rid of the non-compete clauses.

As I commented below, I would not have a problem with Q/A having a non-compete clause, provided that was known in advance, and for a shorter time-frame, such as 3 months/ 6 months, vs the 6 month, 2 year clause now found in the ROC. I personally feel that if Q/A can't hang on to someone after 6 months, they should let them go, no matter who they are going to be working with. Obviously, my personal feelings do not directly effect the Rules of Conduct for Q/A.

[nonprofit]

Dear moderator:
I can see why your confused. First of all you put my post under Utah's name. If you can't keep something this simple straight, well you know.
The noncompete has been deemed unenforceable by 2 courts now, Georgia and California. Typical noncompete clauses involve a limited geographical area. One that can be defined, and enforced. The universe is a little vague as a geographical area, and an intergalactic police force has yet to be instituted. It's also been called one sided, as it only benefits just Amway/Quixtar. Again a no-no! If IBO's choose (a right in the constitution) to pursue another option, why would you try to stop them? Is it because your business model doesn't measure up? Perhaps it's outdated? If your business is the absolute best who in their right mind would leave? If they are dissatisfied are they going to be productive for you? Just how is that working?
I'm guessing the TEAM realized not only is the clause unenforceable it's just plain wrong. That's why they dropped it? Mistakes are only mistakes if not learned from and corrected! How about Amway wakes up and smells the roses?
I'd like a list of court decisions that have upheld the noncompete. Please exclude any that sent it to arbitration (where it was apparently deemed unenforceable as Orrin and Chris are free to do business). How about you throw in where the IBO's who were in the business prior to it being slipped in, signed it, an actual document. One with Orrin's signature will do just fine.
Hope this clears things up for you!
Nonprofit

[Moderator: Hey there, nonprofit. While we respect your right to your opinion, we're not going to do your legal research for you. How about channeling all that anger into being part of the solution, either as a Quixtar IBO or in some new venture if that's what pleases you?]

[Utah]

to nonprofit,
Wake up. This blog posts the new posts on top, with the person that wrote it under it, with the words Posted by: nonprofit.

Is that smart, since most of the other blogs, do it with the oldest first? Doesn't matter - their blog.

A few points. While I agree Q/A has the legal right to have non-compete clauses, I do have a problem with the one they have and how it was implemented. I would agree there have been 2 or 3 recent court rulings against the Q/A's non-compete clauses that I have read. One was older, but two recent.

Based on what I have read, it is true that Amway was founded as a competing business with Nutrilite and it couldn't be done now with current rules.

I disagree with the moderator that it was proven Team had a non-compete clause. I read a copy of one that was filed in a court paper. The copy that was filed was originally faxed from a real estate agent mid-east. How they got it was unknown. The court document didn't have one from the website or any original. Representatives from Team at the time said many months ago, that that clause was suggested by Q/A and was never implemented. That proposed contract was a draft. The paper had speaking fees for both opens and seminars. Since I am /was not getting any of that money, I have no way of telling who was telling the truth. I can't remember which court filing it was in. Either way, it is my opinion it wasn't "recent".

[nonprofit]

Moderator
First of all let me apologize for my mistake. You had my post properly authored, I was wrong. See wasn't that easy!
Now lets address your comments. If you read my last post I did offer you a solution, Let me repost it for you:

****

Now as to the legal research suggestion, I was merely replying to your comment asking you to back that up with fact, see below:

****

As I've pointed out California and Georgia have both ruled against the noncompete so I was wondering if the rest of your statement was incorrect as well. You see once a decision or two has been rendered it sets a standard for other courts to rule by.

As for my anger issues, let's just say half truths and slander do tend to make me defensive. But since I've joined this great organization that promotes personal growth, I've been reading and growing, it's not as bad. I've even found it possible to admit when I'm wrong!

Again, hope this helps the confusion.
Nonprofit

[Moderator]

A couple of comments back Utah said "Based on what I have read, it is true that Amway was founded as a competing business with Nutrilite and it couldn't be done now with current rules."

Fact:

M&C the distribution arm for NPI Nutrilite) changed the Sales Plan in 1956 without notice of any kind and later Carl Rehnborg ran an ad in the Wall Street Journal that he would not sell his products through M&C. There were obvious problems between the two.

The American Way Association was formed in April 1959. There were no products just an Association. The first product was not a competing product and they went out and sponsored a whole new organization of distributors they did not feast on the previous contacts, distributors, or customers of Nutrilite. It cost one dollar to join the Association and no one proselyted the former business. Instead there was a two year moratorium in place and those who were with the AWA did not sponsor one former Nutrilite distributor from other lines of sponsorship.

So how is what Orrin and Chris did line up with Jay and Rich?

Further proof when Amway bought Nutrilite: Rich and Jay placed Joe Victor and Jere Dutt in charge to sort out the LOS because neither of them sponsored one Nutrilite Distributor in their group! While others had a Nutrilite sponsor and an Amway sponsor (after the two year ban) neither Victor or Dutt sponsor one not one up to the purchase of Nutrilite in 1972.

So how does that compare to Orrin and Chris?

That is true Leadership. They rose above the Nutrilite business and created a new one without soiling the other business. They never filed a law suit, complained, enticed others outside their LOS with tool money, instead they lived with integrity and displayed true Leadership.

[Bridgett]

Moderator,
I very much appreciate you joining in the conversation and clarifiying things.

I am confused by your last post regarding Nutrilite distributors and Amway distributors.

You say: "Instead there was a two year moratorium in place and those who were with the AWA did not sponsor one former Nutrilite distributor from other lines of sponsorship."

Did those AWA distributors sponsor CURRENT Nutrilite distributors from THEIR (the AWA distributors who were also Nutrlite distributors, like Rich and Jay) Nutrilite line of sponsorship?

I thought at one time, there were two lines of sponsorship--one with Nutrilite and one with Amway, where there were distributors who were a part of both.

Is this correct? And if so, was it only after the two-year moratorium? Or is this incorrect?

Thanks

[Moderator: Bridgett, no, the original AWA Founding Distributors left their Nutrilite groups behind. However, when they were aligning for a future business that would one day find a product (remember they formed the Association before they had a product) they decided to honor how they met one another and kept the LOS from Ja-Ri to Bass to Hansen to Victor to Dutt instead of all of them to be sponsored by the new entity AWA. And not one of them did anything until after the moratorium; additionally Victor and Dutt never ever sponsored one of their friends from the Nutrilite business in their line or any other line they simply walked away from the Nutrilite business and their Nutrilite downline. The Nutrilite distributors who joined later and who were NOT a part of the Ja-Ri LOS were sponsored directly to Amway.]