ior investments, purchasers were given 3 injunctions:

1) You would need to be a paid subscriber by the close of the month (Nov. 30, 2006).

2) Starting in December 2006 "a leads purchase equivalent to 1% of your total RSVP order value must be made before the end of the month."

3) Starting in January 2007, "a solo mailing (ad package) purchase of $2 for each $200 MVP order and $1 for each $100 MVP order is required by the end of the month."

Empowerism's letter did not disappoint in that it spent two pages outlining every detail of the conditions to make good on any prior investments.

The thought immediately occurred to me that investors were being asked for more money in order to return their original investment.

I am sure the

Empowerism touted its massive and intensive training system. I do have to admit that it went on forever, seemingly with the stated objective of leaving no stone unturned in answering questions.

In fact, Empowerism's knowledge base was so huge that it purported to answer 99.9% of all possible questions about its wonderful opportunity. So comprehensive and effective that I was not allowed to e-mail them without first reading and apparently memorizing the knowledge base.

This is not an uncommon occurrence among big time marketing opportunities because automation is such a big deal. It was pretty clear that Empowerism preferred not to answer any e-mail questions whatsoever, and, of course, it was impossible to talk to a real person on the phone (which would be akin to committing a sin of unmentionable proportions).

Empowerism in particular fancied itself as having the gold standard of all training programs. Any question asked seemed to have an extensive answer, whether it answered the question efficiently or not.

Empowerism seemed to have so much written material one could get overwhelmed just attempting to read it all. I thought Empowerism had raised giving extensive information to an art form, and more often than not with a feeling of righteousness.

I know this: Empowerism was dancing around a topic to such an extent that it was impossible to find clear, concise answers. The same point was repeated so many times so many different ways that after awhile I had to stop reading just to stay awake.

Empowerism also offered two apparent investment programs, a "Revenue Sharing Value Plan" (RSVP) and a "Most Valuable Player" (MVP) program (I think I have these acronyms correct, and give Empowerism credit for two examples of snappy and effective, if not trite, acronyms).

As I remember it, when leads were sold to Empowerism members the funds were paid into a pool and then commissions were paid out to members.

You could apparently invest as little as $25 in a leads package and eventually could be paid as much as $2,000 over a timetable not mentioned or guaranteed. Your fortunes rode with the company. I bought some of these packages.

Empowerism said at the time that it had paid out more than $5 million in commissions and touted RSVP as "the most successful business model of its kind" (Empowerism's words exactly).

All of this came back to me in early November when Empowerism sent me a letter. I had stopped building the Empowerism opportunity for some time and stopped paying my monthly dues, so I was not a member at the time.

I had assumed that when I stopped paying my dues I had forfeited my right to any commissions and any investments I had made. I wrote off the investments and continued on with my life.

Basically, Empowerism's letter said "long-awaited changes to RSVP and MVP" had been implemented because "we can all agree that the current status of RSVP and MVP is not appealing to anyone." It appears that the original program could not continue to pay out as forecasted.

To make good on any prior investments, purchasers were given 3 injunctions:

1) You would need to be a paid subscriber by the close of the month (Nov. 30, 2006).

2) Starting in December 2006 "a leads purchase equivalent to 1% of your total RSVP order value must be made before the end of the month."

3) Starting in January 2007, "a solo mailing (ad package) purchase of $2 for each $200 MVP order and $1 for each $100 MVP order is required by the end of the month."

Empowerism's letter did not disappoint in that it spent two pages outlining every detail of the conditions to make good on any prior investments.

The thought immediately occurred to me that investors were being asked for more money in order to return their original investment.

I am sure ther

mitting a sin of unmentionable proportions).

Empowerism in particular fancied itself as having the gold standard of all training programs. Any question asked seemed to have an extensive answer, whether it answered the question efficiently or not.

Empowerism seemed to have so much written material one could get overwhelmed just attempting to read it all. I thought Empowerism had raised giving extensive information to an art form, and more often than not with a feeling of righteousness.

I know this: Empowerism was dancing around a topic to such an extent that it was impossible to find clear, concise answers. The same point was repeated so many times so many different ways that after awhile I had to stop reading just to stay awake.

Empowerism also offered two apparent investment programs, a "Revenue Sharing Value Plan" (RSVP) and a "Most Valuable Player" (MVP) program (I think I have these acronyms correct, and give Empowerism credit for two examples of snappy and effective, if not trite, acronyms).

As I remember it, when leads were sold to Empowerism members the funds were paid into a pool and then commissions were paid out to members.

You could apparently invest as little as $25 in a leads package and eventually could be paid as much as $2,000 over a timetable not mentioned or guaranteed. Your fortunes rode with the company. I bought some of these packages.

Empowerism said at the time that it had paid out more than $5 million in commissions and touted RSVP as "the most successful business model of its kind" (Empowerism's words exactly).

All of this came back to me in early November when Empowerism sent me a letter. I had stopped building the Empowerism opportunity for some time and stopped paying my monthly dues, so I was not a member at the time.

I had assumed that when I stopped paying my dues I had forfeited my right to any commissions and any investments I had made. I wrote off the investments and continued on with my life.

Basically, Empowerism's letter said "long-awaited changes to RSVP and MVP" had been implemented because "we can all agree that the current status of RSVP and MVP is not appealing to anyone." It appears that the original program could not continue to pay out as forecasted.

To make good on any prior investments, purchasers were given 3 injunctions:

1) You would need to be a paid subscriber by the close of the month (Nov. 30, 2006).

2) Starting in December 2006 "a leads purchase equivalent to 1% of your total RSVP order value must be made before the end of the month."

3) Starting in January 2007, "a solo mailing (ad package) purchase of $2 for each $200 MVP order and $1 for each $100 MVP order is required by the end of the month."

Empowerism's letter did not disappoint in that it spent two pages outlining every detail of the conditions to make good on any prior investments.

The thought immediately occurred to me that investors were being asked for more money in order to return their original investment.

I am sure the

apparent investment programs, a "Revenue Sharing Value Plan" (RSVP) and a "Most Valuable Player" (MVP) program (I think I have these acronyms correct, and give Empowerism credit for two examples of snappy and effective, if not trite, acronyms).

As I remember it, when leads were sold to Empowerism members the funds were paid into a pool and then commissions were paid out to members.

You could apparently invest as little as $25 in a leads package and eventually could be paid as much as $2,000 over a timetable not mentioned or guaranteed. Your fortunes rode with the company. I bought some of these packages.

Empowerism said at the time that it had paid out more than $5 million in commissions and touted RSVP as "the most successful business model of its kind" (Empowerism's words exactly).

All of this came back to me in early November when Empowerism sent me a letter. I had stopped building the Empowerism opportunity for some time and stopped paying my monthly dues, so I was not a member at the time.

I had assumed that when I stopped paying my dues I had forfeited my right to any commissions and any investments I had made. I wrote off the investments and continued on with my life.

Basically, Empowerism's letter said "long-awaited changes to RSVP and MVP" had been implemented because "we can all agree that the current status of RSVP and MVP is not appealing to anyone." It appears that the original program could not continue to pay out as forecasted.

To make good on any prior investments, purchasers were given 3 injunctions:

1) You would need to be a paid subscriber by the close of the month (Nov. 30, 2006).

2) Starting in December 2006 "a leads purchase equivalent to 1% of your total RSVP order value must be made before the end of the month."

3) Starting in January 2007, "a solo mailing (ad package) purchase of $2 for each $200 MVP order and $1 for each $100 MVP order is required by the end of the month."

Empowerism's letter did not disappoint in that it spent two pages outlining every detail of the conditions to make good on any prior investments.

The thought immediately occurred to me that investors were being asked for more money in order to return their original investment.

I am sure the

odel of its kind" (Empowerism's words exactly).

All of this came back to me in early November when Empowerism sent me a letter. I had stopped building the Empowerism opportunity for some time and stopped paying my monthly dues, so I was not a member at the time.

I had assumed that when I stopped paying my dues I had forfeited my right to any commissions and any investments I had made. I wrote off the investments and continued on with my life.

Basically, Empowerism's letter said "long-awaited changes to RSVP and MVP" had been implemented because "we can all agree that the current status of RSVP and MVP is not appealing to anyone." It appears that the original program could not continue to pay out as forecasted.

To make good on any prior investments, purchasers were given 3 injunctions:

1) You would need to be a paid subscriber by the close of the month (Nov. 30, 2006).

2) Starting in December 2006 "a leads purchase equivalent to 1% of your total RSVP order value must be made before the end of the month."

3) Starting in January 2007, "a solo mailing (ad package) purchase of $2 for each $200 MVP order and $1 for each $100 MVP order is required by the end of the month."

Empowerism's letter did not disappoint in that it spent two pages outlining every detail of the conditions to make good on any prior investments.

The thought immediately occurred to me that investors were being asked for more money in order to return their original investment.

I am sure the

ior investments, purchasers were given 3 injunctions:

1) You would need to be a paid subscriber by the close of the month (Nov. 30, 2006).

2) Starting in December 2006 "a leads purchase equivalent to 1% of your total RSVP order value must be made before the end of the month."

3) Starting in January 2007, "a solo mailing (ad package) purchase of $2 for each $200 MVP order and $1 for each $100 MVP order is required by the end of the month."

Empowerism's letter did not disappoint in that it spent two pages outlining every detail of the conditions to make good on any prior investments.

The thought immediately occurred to me that investors were being asked for more money in order to return their original investment.

I am sure there was nothing immoral, illegal or dishonest about Empowerism's RSVP and MVP programs, but these programs have a habit of running out of gas at some point when more people and more investments become involved. It was just a matter of time before it went bust.

It must have taken me 3 seconds to decide to ignore the letter, and let Empowerism keep the investments I had made. I could not see how subsidizing Empowerism was in my best interest, Empowerism clearly needs the money to straighten out its affairs much more than I do.

Copyright © 2006 Ed Bagley