PaaP Businesses

Platform as a Product (PaaP) businesses have been around (in earnest) for at least a decade.  These businesses provide the system, processes, and administrative functionality to both market and track digital commerce.  Most require a one-time (or periodic) Administration Fee that is paid to the Platform owner.  As well, many now have peer-to-peer-based money-exchange models where funds (the commerce) is made on platforms such as Bitcoin, PayPal, Cash.app, Stripe, Googlepay, etc.

Typically, these platforms have training information or service-based offers.  However, no matter "what" the offer is, all have a front-end marketing system (capture pages, autoresponders, sizzle calls, chatbots, etc.) and a back-end where "the business" is tracked and administered.  This marketing and administrative platform is the product. 

It enables Social Commerce where people agree to participate in the exchange of money for mutual benefit by engaging with "the platform" -  used as a vehicle to transact commerce, e.g. the exchange of money for something of value.

Seems straightforward enough... adults choosing to participate in a technology-based, digitally-driven platform to create commerce for the mutual benefit of those who choose to be involved.  What could go wrong?

Well then, there are leverage components.  These components enable a single exchange of money to become financially magnified based on the compensation structure of the platform... i.e. the rules agreed to when joining the platform regarding how the money works.  These compensation systems can vary widely.  Simply stated, they all have some form of leverage component. (unilevel, one up, two up, reverse one up, matrix or grid, 50/50 hybrid... you get the idea).  There are many more.

The question is whether these models detract from the legitimacy of these PaaP businesses?  Or, to put a finer point on it, whether governmental laws overseeing these platforms prejudicially hinder their existence?  And, whether corporate policy (especially in the financial and technology sectors) do the same?

In an industry that exists to elevate people's lives, it seems a bit counterintuitive that there would be resistance of corporate and governmental entities to inhibit these platforms from proliferating and flourishing.  Nonetheless, this seems to be the case.

The question is why?  My response is fairly simple.  It is based on the prejudice borne of the historical inertia of "failure" in the industry.  It is based on the idea that "these programs don't work", when in fact, structurally, these programs do work.  The problem is, people do not work to make the programs work to their benefit.

Then there is the "issue" of supervisorial requirements.  In other words, joining is not enough.  This infers that a "sponsor" has a managerial responsibility to those sponsored.  If this is lacking, it creates a very big target for the dart throwers.  There are many more "issues" like this.  If you want to take a deep dive, see THIS SITE.  You can find your state right at the top.  "State Listings" is a link.  This is very worthy stuff to read and learn about as you become a Professional in this industry.

But then again, keeping it real, as this site references, there are the Neanderthals who market these businesses by making inflated earnings representations and get-rich-quick claims.  The "establishment" generally sees the industry as the more well-informed preying on the less well-informed.  Unfortunately, given the "open" model and marketing to the masses approach of the industry, one has to give berth this seedy and somewhat insidious aspect, and the scoundrels who perpetrate these rancid practices.  All this muck generates the "scam" tags.

The reality is that this "reputation" is replete in the industry and exists as a stigma - especially for any new company trying to establish a foothold that can grow into a long-term, stable, (wholesome, worthy) proposition for those involved.

This reputational liability of an entire industry is hard to overcome, especially in an environment where some of the major players are currently under scrutiny and hedge fund owners bicker back and forth - which in turn gets the attention of regulators.  It is unfortunate but nonetheless is the current reality.  Herbalife and NuSkin going public as a stock did no one in our industry any favors.

In any event, PaaP businesses are here to stay.  Many exist and are thriving.  Others, especially in a start-up environment need to wiggle and push out their pointy elbows to get established and gain traction.  In these instances, my best advice is an ecosystem approach where "the deal" is more than the platform, but is inclusive of community and culture, standards, norms and values, mentorship and leadership - all leading to an "entity" of such high value that is cannot be dismissed as "one of those pyramid things".

People banding together under the proposition of making money is (can be?) an inherently good and noble thing to do.  The moral foundation on which the proposition is based becomes the declaration of its legitimacy.  Competence.  Character.  Contribution. Candor.  All of these "C's" need to be part and parcel of Compensation.  Here is why:  if it is simply about the money, it won't last.  This is why an entire ecosystem is necessary to engender short-term success, which in turn will greatly enhance long-term viability.

Otherwise, if it is another "here today, gone tomorrow" venture, it will be one more business on the large trash heap of failed attempts in the Social Commerce space.  None of us wants to see this happen to or for anyone - owner or participant.