About Me 0050: Business Making Money

I have never been a gambler.

I pay attention to horse racing twice most years, and three times at most. I find out the winner of the Kentucky Derby (though usually not by watching the actual race) and then, when the Preakness rolls around, I check to see if the same horse has won both races.

If so, I pay just enough attention to learn if that horse also wins the Belmont Stakes, taking racing’s prestigious Triple Crown. The last time a horse actually won all three races was in 1978, so since then my excitement over the Belmont Stakes has been pretty limited.

In spite of all that, I thought I knew at least one thing about the gambling world: The house always wins. But it turns out that’s not the case when New York City or New York State takes the bets.

In early December, after about 40 years in business, New York City’s Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) closed its doors when it failed to receive a hoped-for legislative reprieve. In its last full fiscal year, ending March 31, the state-controlled corporation operated at a loss of $37.2 million after handing over the money it was required to give to the state, local governments, and race tracks. At the time of its closing, OTB had also racked up a pension bill that, together with health benefits promised to retirees, could be greater than $600 million.

This is a pretty astonishing feat considering that OTB’s business consisted of taking money from people and then giving some of it back to them. This is a business which was previously handled by neighborhood bookies, who never seemed to have a problem making money at it. To be fair, the bookies probably had a less generous pension plan.

Yet both New York City and New York State managed to fail to make money in the business of taking money for nothing. The city finally gave up in 2008, when it handed its mess over to the state.

Officials have tried to blame OTB’s collapse on decreased interest in horse racing. Speaking with The New York Times, John D. Sabini, chairman of the State Racing and Wagering Board, referred to off-track betting as “an industry that’s having a tough time…in a tough economy.” But while decreased demand is a fine excuse for not making much money, a gambling outfit should still be able to avoid losing money. All you have to do is reduce expenses to match revenues.

OTB could have easily closed down many or all of its betting parlors and relied on a small staff to manage Internet and phone traffic. For some businesses, atmosphere is everything, but OTB considered it a major upgrade in “customer amenities” when it installed restrooms and seating in 1993. It seems safe to say then that, while some may have enjoyed a sense of camaraderie in the storefront parlors, most people didn’t turn to off-track betting for the luxurious environment. With the cost savings from closing physical locations, OTB could have done some advertising to try to boost demand. That is what any rational manager would have done.

Unfortunately, instead of having rational managers, OTB had New York City and then New York State.

OTB was designed to function as a public benefit corporation, an entity that operates like a private business but turns over its profits to the state. However, everyone knew that OTB, being affiliated with New York City, was almost certain to become a bastion of patronage, if not corruption, and probably would never admit to having any profits to give back to the government. So lawmakers decided to have the corporation pay the city, and later also the state, a portion of its gross revenue, rather than its net profits. As Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow of Mount Vernon succinctly explained: “If they’re allowed to pay on the net there would be nothing left over.”

This structure meant that the state was sure of getting some money, but it also meant the government had little reason to encourage OTB to cut costs. Meanwhile OTB had no assurance that it would have enough money after paying the state and the city to actually cover its operating costs, let alone reinvest in its business. The result was inevitable. Now that inevitability has come to pass.

It may take some skill to lose money collecting bets, but it’s the kind of skill New York has in spades. When it comes to the sport of mismanagement, there’s no doubt about it: The people who run the Empire State are thoroughbreds.

For more articles on financial, business, and other topics, view the Palisades Hudson newsletter, Sentinel, or subscribe to my daily opinion column, Current Commentary.

Martin,

While I respect your efforts to warn would-be entrepreneurs about illegal schemes, your observations regarding multilevel marketing (MLM) are ignorant and unjustified. Please understand that I am not using the term "ignorant" derogatorily, but rather to describe your commentary as being ignore-ant of readily available historical, mathematical, and legal information about this industry and profession.

First of all, as a successful distributor, consultant, advocate, and court certified expert in the field of multilevel marketing, I am offended by your reference to my profession as a pyramid scheme only by a "matter of degree". There are well over 1,000 such companies in the U.S. alone, which is one of 80+ countries where it's recognized as a legal and legitimate form of business. You assert that they "all" sound like "get rich quick schemes" to you. How many of these several hundred MLM programs have you researched and evaluated? This business model has existed for 75 years, and includes not only Mary Kay and Lia Sophia, but also Shaklee, Avon, Discovery Toys, Watkins, Tupperware, Pampered Chef (owned by Warren Buffet) and many other good corporate citizens (over 20 of which are publicly traded). Your characterization of this profession does a grave disservice to the 30 million world-wide distributors, 20,000+ employees, hundreds of vendors, and thousands of investors associated with this industry.

You state "…the essence of an entrepreneur is creating something new and innovative, whereas an MLM is a traditional formula on an existing product…". And a typical Starbucks or McDonald's franchise is not? But this argument is academic considering the wide array of innovative products that have come from, or been popularized, by the MLM industry. For example, no one even heard of Mangosteen, Noni, Goji or Acai ten years ago. Today these "super fruits" make up a billion dollar world wide market, both within and outside of the MLM industry. Yes, some marketers of these fruit drinks do over-hype their products, and many untrained, unprofessional distributors do make unsubstantiated claims about them. But let's be clear in that this is an issue with how MLM is often packaged, not with the content.

Yet, you go on to claim that an upfront requirement to purchase marketing and training material (which is typically less than $50) that will better educate the new rep on how to properly promote their business is an "unnecessary and are inappropriate" red flag.

You go on to site online material such as Van Druff's “What's Wrong With Multi-Level Marketing?” as a credible source of information. This is in spite of the fact this article was originally written 21 years ago by an individual who has never participated in the profession he criticizes. This is one of the most ill-conceived and debunked anti-MLM article in existence, as is evident here: http://www.marketwaveinc.com/viewarticle.asp?id=7

Your suggestion to look for a formal home office street address is valid, however the existence of a toll-free number is virtually meaningless considering the ease in which one can now be obtained, and considering Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC had one. Furthermore, the BBB routinely issues low grades to MLM companies due to the "industry in which this business operates" – that is, until the company pays for BBB membership. Then the BBB will have no concern about the "industry in which this business operates" and will unconditionally award it at least an "A-" grade.

While I agree with your "red flags" #2, #3, and #4, when evaluating whether more income is coming from purchases of downline reps, per #5, you must also consider that, according to several states as well as the Federal Trade Commission, those downline reps can count as bona fide customers. As can be gleaned from this FTC letter to the DSA here, http://www.marketwaveinc.com/FTC_Letter.pdf, the FTC considers only the motive for buying the product, not what percentage is sold to non-distributor customers. And, in fact, many retail customers do choose to become reps, and most MLM reps are passionate, often to a fault, about their products.

You state, "you will need lots of family and friends to make it work" yet just a few sentences later you state "The Internet has made it so easy now. In the old days you had to actually visit people, or at least call them, to pitch your fabulous new opportunity." Your first statement is utterly false, while your latter statement is quite correct. While exposing one's product or opportunity to a friend or family member is still common (with the majority of industry leaders training to lead with the product), the majority of marketing is now done online and directed towards one's "cold market".

You further theorize that "Multi-Level Marketing” and “Network Marketing” were "sanitized terms" invented after Amway and others were charged with “pyramiding” back in the early 1970s. What you failed to mention was that the courts ultimately ruled Amway, and thus the MLM compensation model, was NOT an illegal pyramid. Furthermore, the term “Network Marketing” was coined in the early 1990s.

Finally, you do concede "there must be something to the business model" since "some big business icons like Donald Trump are joining in the MLM parade". Besides Trump you can include the afore-mentioned Warren Buffet, as well as Anthony Robbins, Robert Kiyosaki, Paul Zane Pilzer, Brian Tracy, Mark Victor Hansen, and Bill Clinton (http://www.youtube.com/DirectSelling411) as supporters of this profession.

Martin, pyramid schemes do often try to disguise themselves as legal, legitimate MLM operations – because they want to be perceived as legal and legitimate. And yes, we do suffer a guilt by association with illegal pyramid schemes, but this is due precisely to wholly inaccurate portrayals within the media such as yours.

Thank you for considering, an allowing me to present, an opposing point of view.

Len Clements

Founder & CEO

MarketWave, Inc.
bench craft company reviews bench craft company reviews

Monday, 10 January 2011

Business Making Money

No comments:

Post a Comment