This is a question for those who have spent too much time thinking about good versus not-so-good multi-level marketing schemes.
I apologise in advance for the very narrow subject matter.
@mikeo188 is an anti-Herbalife account on Twitter. (S)he is very well informed seeming to know the news from the anti-Herbalife camp before it is public.
As someone who is long Herbalife (and has done considerable work) I still take Mikeo seriously. It is Bronte's policy to seek out opponents of our views so we can test their arguments.
Mikeo asked me if I had seen the ESPN piece on Advocare. Sure.
Then asked me what the difference between Advocare and Herbalife was. I said plenty if you looked on the ground (and I have looked on the ground).
But I want to ask a question in response.
Herbalife and Advocare have very different policies as to what happens to the ownership of a distribution business on the death of a distributor.
Here is the Advocare policy:
It is in the full document somewhat more complicated - but the sentiment is that a distributorship ends at the death of the distributor and the upline distributor then gets the income. It is very hard to maintain a distributorship even with an active will.
And here is the Herbalife rule which allows a period of distributor inactivity in which continuity rules do not apply:
The Herbalife rules are designed to ensure the continuity and inheritability of the business.
To the people who claim to have done all this research into Herbalife - can they please explain why Herbalife has such different rules?