As long as you keep it clean and it’s not spammy, I’ll approve. That alone shows I don’t have an agenda.
I rightly pointed out that the number of complaints with BBB was “rather low”. I also relied on another independent source, Google, for trending data. There is a strong correlation between new recruits and search traffic for the term, right? Logic would dictate that each time a guy at the water cooler says, “I have this GREAT business opportunity for you, want to learn more?”, the first thing they do is go back to their desk and google it. There’s initially no traffic in early 2008, then a big spike. To me, the data looks pretty reasonable. While you cite the current number at 105K, do you dispute that the rate of growth has actually slowed (we’re talking 2nd derivative here)? Based on my assessment of Google Search traffic, typical patterns of MLMs and logical deduction, it is my opinion that the rate of growth is slowing from the 2008 timeframe.
Anyway, that’s old news and I don’t need the distraction of additional letters from my legal buddy, so I’m sticking to facts provided by third parties; but rest assured
If you disagree with the way the BBB or Google (both pretty large, legitimate, unbiased and oft-cited references) collate and report their data, I suggest you take it up with them. I’m just reporting the facts.
By the looks of the data, you can’t draw that correlation from the launch and subsequent promotion of the business?
Now, you question why I didn’t do a more detailed review. Well, I did. In 2008. And I was subsequently bombarded with legal threats in ridiculous fashion. If you think the “vague” review above is somehow harmful to your interests, consider how readers would feel if they were privy to the inner workings of the system – the actual number of people that canceled their membership immediately upon signing up (even the ones that joined within the first couple thousand – sweetspot, right?), the reasons for cancellation, the “balance” theory wrt left/right legs, etc. I saw the cancellation data myself during an initial telecon where they gave access to one of the early member accounts and had people navigate through their website (I doubt they do this anymore?). Why would so many people cancel when they joined so early in such a “winning” proposition? ..you don’t want my full review if you’re looking to advance the STE agenda.
I’m not looking to advance the STE agenda, I’m just looking to correct biased reporting, and it is biased, not because it goes against STE but because it reflects the negative in a purely hyped up way while reflecting nothing positive. Truth be told I would prefer a review of pluses or minuses or a review from both an STE detractor and an STE advocate. At least this would be fair, rather than your current review. By the way, I did read your full review several months ago, and I was detracted by it. It was so loaded with half truths and inuendos that I steered clear of STE. My friend sat down with me, he asked me to read into it because he knew I was thorough and I did it because of my close freindship with him, and that’s where I learned a great many things in the review were not accurate and some were just flat out wrong. That’s the problem with the internet, people take what is in print as fact because if someone is writing it, it must be true.