Preface: I did not end up doing the Kangen business and it is not a part of my earning portfolio. I thought someone might be interested in my thought process should they be considering Kangen as an earning platform.
______________________________
I am writing to convince myself, or to talk-myself-out-of doing the Kangen water business. I write for catharsis and to organize my thoughts. At the end of this - my goal is to have made a reasonable justification for moving in either direction by being as brutally honest as I can be with myself and with anyone who reads this.
The basic proposition for me is whether my need to make money outweighs the negative press and speculation that exists regarding the Kangen technology and its efficacy. I sit here, perplexed by the risk of investing $6,000 in a business start-up, but at the same time intrigued by the money and the business model - without having any first hand, tangible knowledge of the product, i.e. I have never tasted the water or experienced its purported benefits.
On this level, I live in Warwick, RI and the taste of the water here would be easily altered if impurities were "cleansed". I know I could tell with a micro sip. The water in my home (and I would speculate the entire city) has a discernible organic /musty pallor. It reminds us the of the taste of mushrooms with a high end negative aftertaste. We don't drink it. We buy 12 oz. bottles; and also have a filter pitcher in our refrigerator. So on this level, the "need" exists. Our city-supplied water, simply and frankly, is a bit gross. As stated, there is a need. The real question is, is there a need that rises to a $6,000 threshold to address?
If you were to read the rest of this blog, I have written about being a "money mercenary" and espouse the proposition of "making money" as an end in itself, or making money as the business model. However, to have a "real" business, the best-case scenario is to offer something for sale that is of real value. For Kangen, the "value" is hit quite hard by detractors that call ionized water network marketing-driven quackery... the modern day equivalent of snake oil sales (due to its health claims) and in general the "science" is exhaustively discredited by many online sources.
Therefore, "my reality" regarding any initial excitement about the business potential has been tempered by all of this negative press and is the source of my conundrum. The truth is that personal credibility is very important to me and I want / need to be proud of anything I attach my name to. At the end of the day, it is a business ethics question. Will I be promoting something that has value (and) is integrity one of the main pillars on which it is built? But then, there is another angle... which most people will not have the benefit of knowing.
In my work I use two different machines that employ ionization technology. I manage custodial operations for a small college. The first is somewhat un-refutable. It is a sanitizing blower that "mists" classrooms with hypochlorous acid (on the bleach spectrum). I "cook" tap water with the gizmo provided with an added pack of (special?) salt water. The ionizer splits the salt (NaCl) and produces an acid solution that kills germs. You can find more about this HERE. The efficacy and utility of this technology is without question... but it is ionizing salt water.
The second is: I inherited a new autoscrubber made by Tennant. Instead of using cleaning chemicals, it has an on-board ionizer that makes its own cleaning solution: from tap water. This fact (if one is to believe it as fact) has me a bit stymied... that another (if Kangen is the first) international company is using ionized tap water to clean... then how does this speak to the credibility of the technology and refute the "charlatan hawkers"? You can see more about this technology HERE. They ionize tap water and create micro bubbles. However: Karcher, a German company, is currently suing Tennant about the claims this technology makes and is insisting that the "ionized" water is no more effective than tap water... go to jail... do not pass go... do not collect $200...!
So... another thought. In internet marketing / money-making circles there are generally two propositions: big ticket and small ticket sales. Obviously, Kangen is a big ticket sale. The rationale is that in both, you invest the same amount of work to gain a customer (or prospect), therefore it makes infinitely more sense to follow the money for the greater return for time invested. I do not necessarily agree, because I view the high ticket price as a barrier to entry. However, something unique about the way this is marketed is that "credit application" is built right into the automated process. This is smart and has never been done before, to my knowledge.
As a result, I circle back to the (making money as an end in itself) notion - juxtaposed to making this happen in a product category that is handicapped by skepticism and derision? I understand this ultimately may come down to a "leap of faith". There is no question that the high price of the machine(s) supports a generous compensation structure. Therefore, built into the "proposition" is a high (overpriced?) item that unabashedly backs the notion of making money for its distributors.
Ultimately, am I selling a water machine, or am I selling the ability to make money in the context of crappy tasting water? I would not anticipate that I would "retail" many of these machines, but would only be selling them to people attracted to the money-making aspects - with (at minimum) better tasting water as a benefit. As for the health claims... time would need to tell - and this (at best) is subjective.
The reality is this: there are a lot of people on this band wagon and doing well financially. I need to ask if my healthy skepticism is tantamount to shooting myself in the foot? And, if my penchant for perfection will once again prevent me from "working within the given parameters".
My conclusion is that nothing is perfect and the primary objective in my life right now is on-going residual income to support my wife and I when we are no longer working within the next 5-10 years. Therefore, with my eyes wide open and with due consideration, I conclude that I must embrace the bad and measure its valence against the potential benefit. This will be an individual decision for everyone, but I hope that I have shown some light on how I arrived at my decision.
Post Script: Although I ended with the conclusion above that the money outweighed the ethics, the angel on my shoulder kept whispering in my ear. I ended up not getting involved with this business.
