Is it better to raid in secret or in plain sight? Epic puts $100,000,000 on the table for deals

Hi everyone, Kevin Thompson here, co founder of Thompson Burton and the MLM attorney. And I saw something recently that got my attention and it really disturbed me. There's a company out there making a lot of waves, getting a lot of attention and I'm sure you've heard of them. It's Epic, the company called Epic. Now I'm not here to opine about the legitimacy of their model and if it's a good company or not, although there are some pretty significant bundles that new distributors are encouraged to buy when they join. Usually that triggers a few issues. That's not the point of this post. It's this hundred million dollar number being thrown around. So this company very publicly has said we've got a hundred million dollars set aside or allocated or available for top leaders. So if a top leader comes on board and they they can comply with the terms, Epic has money for them. On the one hand, I was pretty impressed. It takes some cojones for lack of a better way of putting it, to put it out there. In most cases, actually in all cases these sorts of deals are done in secret and I've always thought that that's a bad way to go about it. So what I'm talking about is usually in these deals of old and to this day, companies will approach a networker or a networker will approach a company and make various representations about what he or she can do. Deal gets cut, money changes hand. And privately there's an understanding between the company and the networker that there's going to be some rating that goes on. The company isn't paying the networker because they're a good person, they're paying them because they have influence with a lot of people, probably built up with another company, which means there's going to be a contract violation somewhere. Usually that's understood that this networker, in order to bring all these people from company A over to company B, there's going to be some soliciting, there's going to be a violation of the non compete, there's going to be some problems, but it's all part of the risk. I've written an article actually three years ago about management distributors. I said, are they good or are they bad? And actually like the typical lawyer that I am, I kind of split the baby right in the middle. And I said it could be both really. As I've evolved over the years, I haven't seen many special deals that work out well for the company. Usually the leaders overstate what they can do. The company compromises on its Integrity and its principles. And they just don't build a really good culture by going after leaders that are only drawn to money. My experience over the past several years in the space, but in this article I wrote three years ago, I said that, you know, this practice of paying leaders can really be cured if it's disclosed. So if a leader says, hey, I think this is the best company out there, I love it. I love their products, I love their pay plan. If it's disclosed to the audience members that this person is paid on top of the compensation plan, I think that would help. That way, the people that hear the endorsement, that hear the message, they're in a good position to make an informed decision. Okay, well, this person's paid extra money, so perhaps their glowing endorsement is tainted a little bit. I think that's important. Now, of course, that's me being naive. I wrote that three years ago and I have yet to see a single deal that has been disclosed. So anyway, I see this deal with Epic, hundred million dollars, and I think to myself, is this what companies, is this what we become as an industry? Is this what companies do? Companies need to do this to compete today. They got to wave out dollar bills, millions of dollars, $100 million, and say, you know what? We can't do it the old fashioned way. We can't attract people with superior product, we can't attract people with a superior pay plan. We've got to attract people with money. Which method is preferable? Putting it out there in plain sight like Epic has done, or doing it in secret? I'm actually not a fan of either approach. Now, putting it out there in plain sight, you still have the same problem. Epic knows. And you folks, you folks watching this video, if you've been in the industry for a while, you know that networkers that are drawn to that kind of a deal, that are drawn to the extra money, they've got contractual baggage from somewhere else. They're under a non solicitation clause where they've agreed not to solicit people for a two year period. We know that Epic knows that in private deals, sometimes that's part of the, that's baked into the contract where the company will say, well, in the event you get sued, we'll indemnify you, we'll cover your legal fees. I think that's dishonorable. Companies in the industry, the good ones, they spend years and decades building up trust and goodwill in the marketplace and building up a loyal following of distributors. And to have somebody take advantage of those investments, take advantage of that goodwill and to take it like that by writing a check, I don't think that's the best way of going about building a business. Now there are executives out there that disagree with me. They'll say, kevin, you're being naive. That's the way business is done today. Well, you know what? If you want to get big fast, maybe that's what you have to do. Maybe you have to throw out your dollar bills to attract certain leaders. Is it a good long term strategy? There are some companies out there that have been aggressive in the past in cutting deals. I don't know if it's worked. Number two, you're inviting a lot of litigation, especially by putting it out there. Now, I'm not saying it's better to be private. I don't think these deals are good for the industry. I don't think it's healthy. The best way to do it, you attract leaders who love the product, who love the brand, who love the leaders behind the company and they put their heart and soul into it. Let's talk about how this is going to get played out. So you got these leaders. They're going to be drawn. They've got all this experience with all these various companies. They've built out, they've built up a downline over the past several years somewhere else. Let's say it's Amway or Monavie. By the way, you poach one of Amway's people, they're going to sue you. Which maybe that's the we have to consent part of the epic 100 million dollar deal. They're going to selectively choose leaders that have been in companies that are not too litigious. But still. Now let's get back to the point. You're going to get leaders from these various companies and they're going to bring over their downlines just as expected, just as incentivized by the payment terms. And one of two things will happen. Number one, they'll deliver. And in that scenario, there might be litigation from the company, such as maybe Visalis gets ticked off and they sue. Because essentially Epic is encouraging these contract violations by way of these payment terms. And if Epic is watching this, guys, I understand the argument. I know what you're going to say before you even say it. Well, we're not encouraging them to break the contract. In fact, these leaders are saying that they're going to honor their contractual provisions with their prior companies. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Bottom line is there's going to be some problems. $100 million, a lot of deals are going to get cut. There's going to be some problems. So it's going to invite some litigation, which, that's never really good for business. But maybe the net gain is worth the litigation expenses. Depends on who sues you. If the second scenario is a networker takes the deal, they get paid for three or four months, they hit the metrics, but they fall short. Is epic really going to sue these distributors? Maybe they will. Maybe there's some poor law firm out there. That's going to just sue these poor bastards for. For not hitting these metrics. I don't know if I don't want to be in that kind of a situation. As a firm suing these distributors. That thought that they could live up to these metrics, and they couldn't. And then they get sued. It's just a weird deal. Bottom line, the industry is fantastic. I mean, we have our problems. My goodness, we have our problems. This whole thing with bill ackman and the short seller and herbalife, it's revealed some of the issues, But I still love it. And a lot of my clients, they're not trying to be the next. The next rich devos. They just want to make an impact with whatever product they're selling, Whatever nutritional supplement that's innovative and creative. That's how they want to make a dent in the universe. I've got clients with remarkable party plan concepts. And remarkable jewelry and apparel. And it's fun. It's a great way to distribute Unique products and services. And then you have stuff like this happen. Where you're throwing red meat into the wolves den. And it just creates a frenzy in the space. And it's not good for the space. And I really don't think long term, it's good for epic's business long term. Now, this video. Here's the thing about the Internet. The Internet has memory. This video is going to be out there for a while. And I'm predicting today that that company Is going to regret this kind of an offering. I think it's bad for their brand. I think it's bad, Bad for business. I think it's bad for the industry. My preference, and this is just me being naive, Is for companies to really innovate and lead. And attract the right leaders for the right reasons. What richard brook calls the 100 Year Business Plan. You don't have to be a billion dollar business in two years. There's nothing wrong with having a hundred year business plan. And growing a sustainable and honorable business. By building a professional and ethical sales culture. How can you build cultures when you're poaching leaders from all these different organizations? And they're all going to bring their biases and their baggage and their contractual restrictions with them to this company. So again, I'm not opining on Epic's business model. It might be a good company with a great product, but this hundred million dollar thing, it's freaking absurd. It's absurd. And I think it's going to draw a lot of problems with this program and it's going to create problems for this company. They're going to have to sue distributors potentially that don't hit the metrics. They're going to get sued by companies that are saying that Epic is knowingly interfering with company contracts. So the title of my blog post for this video is, is it better to raid in secret or raid in private? I'm sorry, raid in secret or raid in plain sight? Sorry about that. If I were to pick, pick neither. It's not preferable to raid at all. But if you're gonna raid, disclose the deals. Disclose who gets these deals. So if Epic discloses who receives the special money, better than nothing. So, guys, it was on my heart. I wanted to share it. I wanna know what you think. This is a new thing. So this is my impression. I've seen a lot of deals with master distributors. Again in secret. I don't like it in secret. This one's in plain sight. It's interesting. I have some thoughts about it. Maybe you have some thoughts about it. So please share. Take care. Have a wonderful day.