Business Builder or Money Hustler?

 Let me start by asking a question.  Is there is a place in the Home Business Industry for people who simply want to make a buck?  These people may have no interest in the big picture stuff with a long-term orientation.  Additionally, they may have tried "figuring out" things in the past and simply have given up on their ability or aptitude to make things work.  So instead, they can (and are more than willing to) pitch "this or that" with a very short-term strategy of simply hustling to make money.  Full stop.  No relationship.  Everything is a sales transaction. Once you have bought, you are on your own.  No different than going to the grocery store and buying a potato.

We all know these people exist, consciously or by default.  Again, asking, if there is a financial incentive for the (purchaser) and you are an Affiliate selling a tool or re-marketing other peoples' products, where does the responsibility lie for teaching the purchaser how to make sales?  Is it with the product creator?  Or, is it with the seller?  It has to be with the seller, right?

So, this begs another (related) question.  What happens to the (purchaser) of an Affiliate-Marketed product if the seller/referrer is simply a money hustler?  Are they doing a "service to the masses" by exposing the opportunity to more people?  Or, are they doing a disservice by selling something with no expectation that any level of training and support as a part of the deal?  In both scenarios, what are the implications?

If a money hustler is upfront and discloses that they are merely a vendor for something and there are no strings attached post-sale, then this is simply one way of doing business.  It is imprudent in my view, but again, this is how many choose to go about things. It becomes a "one-off", a side deal that inherently devalues the transaction. After all, you can buy the aforementioned potato anywhere.

On the other hand, does the Home Business Industry have generally agreed to norms and a Code of Ethics about how referrals and sponsorship should take place?  This is especially true if there is an inherent dynamic of a financial incentive.  Once a seller (refers) something, and there is a financial incentive for the purchaser, is there a "duty" from the seller to teach, share strategies, and support the purchaser?  I think there is such a duty.

So this comes full circle back to the title of this post:  Business Builder or Money Hustler?  Can you build a long-term stable business and pepper it with "one-offs"?  I suppose it is possible, but again I ask, is it prudent?  As such, it is my contention that anyone you enroll in anything with a financial incentive as part of the "pitch" is owed a certain duty of care based on their level of need and experience.  This can be through systems and sharing resources, or it can be done through personal mentorship which typically would include both.

Otherwise, if you are merely schlepping a product to make a buck, you may benefit yourself but you are doing a disservice to those enrolled.  There are others in the industry who would provide a higher level of service and care, especially for those needing guidance and direction and left to flail.

The Semantic Soup of Sponsorship

I had a short exchange with an Opinion Leader on Social Media recently.  We are involved with the same platform that is both a tool and an income opportunity.  His thought was, "Your referrer owes you nothing but their referral code, anything more is a bonus".  I took him to task and here's why. 

In my mind, this is a distinction without a difference if you split the hairs of the referrer, sponsor, enroller, upline...  Semantically, they all connote the same thing.  The person I was "arguing" with was attempting to make the case that given that we market a "tool", it is no different than Aweber (an autoresponder "tool") and the Affiliate Program for Aweber does not require selling your soul to the person you enroll for (in this case, for this program) $100.  Or, as he said it, "they don't own you for $100".

I disagree to the extent that everyone deserves a shot at profitability.  In the "opportunity" portion of this tool, there is a $100 investment to get started.  The first sale goes to you (the person enrolled, which is break-even), the second sale goes to your sponsor, and all subsequent sales go to you.  In other words, you need to make three sales to be in profit... which happens with your third sale.

Objectively, in our industry, in more cases than not, this does not happen.  People are left to flail with knowing there are (metaphorical) buttons-to-push, but they have no idea where to find the buttons, then what to push, and in what order - to spit out their first $100.  All the while, there is this "referrer" who seemingly has all the answers to the "button" issues you face given their experience in the industry, or at least having experience with the product you just purchased from them.

To say you are "'owed nothing" is High Treason to the industry.  He attempted to draw a difference between referring and sponsoring.  Again, in an income opportunity, this is semantic soup if there is a profit incentive.  You are "owed" guidance and mentorship.  If the "sponsor" does not reach out and provide it, you stand a better-than-average chance of failing if you are brand new to the industry and have no experience.

Then ultimately, all of this contributes to the blind leading the blind and business opportunities devolving into "one of those things" that didn't work for the majority, so then it atrophies and eventually dies a slow and painful death... like, (as we know) so many of these businesses do.

In a business of "helping people", owing nothing to people you enroll simply does not make sense.  You are "owed" at minimum, a map to navigate "the buttons".  You are "owed" at minimum a phone call, a text series, an autoresponder training series that guides, encourages, and supports... and this can (and does) go much deeper in our Community.

Obviously, I could not disagree more with this "leader" and find it shameful that he has assumed the mantle he has - as a spokesperson for this tool and opportunity.  It sends the wrong message and is antithetical to decent human beings offering training and support to help and enable (in some cases) desperate people who are looking for "a way" to transition from where they are to where they want to be.

All of this being said, see yesterday's post, "The Art of Sponsoring Successful People".