cribing a situation where a franchised business model did not meet the minimum criteria in initial fees or ongoing payments in the definitions of a franchise, however did qualify under a new definition in the Federal Trade Commission of business opportunity definition.

We must be careful in business when describing either business model to properly label the particular opportunity exactly what it is to prevent confusion. Government needs to also come up with a clear definition to help consumers.

The modern Franchise business model and the much different business opportunity are much different and dissimilar. The definition of these two business models should be broken into completely different parts to better fit the two-different business models and have their own set of regulations, which would contain similar stipulations with regards to prohibitions, definitions or basic rules of law. The Federal Trade Commission is considering a redefining of these two models under their legal description.

I would beg to differ from those who propose similarities in rules of law or basic definitional properties of business opportunities and franchises, which did not co-evolve between 1970 to 1995, but rather Franchising branched off completely to form a divergent and much higher cognitive state. Business Opportunities on the other hand meandered to experience a multitude of developmental digressions, which now encompass everything from MLM businesses and ATM machines to Kiosks and online vitamin supplements.

When the Federal Trade Commission considered additional regulatory over sight and disclosure of the franchise rule in 1995 the business models should have forever been severed as distinct and different species, even though one could say they were born of the same evolutionary branch. Now in 2005 we see that these two methods and business models do not even belong in the same ballpark at all. Business Opportunities are evolving quite fast like a virus where as franchises are a more complex and ongoing life form. Franchising and business opportunity law must be separated completely if we are to make any relevant progress. If the goal of the Federal Trade Commission, which is somewhat unclear in concept is to protect the consumer and assist the industry with any sort of appropriate guidance, there can be no further consideration that business opportunities should remain in this line of discussion. Nowhere in the franchise rule should the name business opportunity occur unless describing a situation where a franchised business model did not meet the minimum criteria in initial fees or ongoing payments in the definitions of a franchise, however did qualify under a new definition in the Federal Trade Commission of business opportunity definition.

We must be careful in business when describing either business model to properly label the particular opportunity exactly what it is to prevent confusion. Government needs to also come up with a clear definition to help consumers. T

n.

I would beg to differ from those who propose similarities in rules of law or basic definitional properties of business opportunities and franchises, which did not co-evolve between 1970 to 1995, but rather Franchising branched off completely to form a divergent and much higher cognitive state. Business Opportunities on the other hand meandered to experience a multitude of developmental digressions, which now encompass everything from MLM businesses and ATM machines to Kiosks and online vitamin supplements.

When the Federal Trade Commission considered additional regulatory over sight and disclosure of the franchise rule in 1995 the business models should have forever been severed as distinct and different species, even though one could say they were born of the same evolutionary branch. Now in 2005 we see that these two methods and business models do not even belong in the same ballpark at all. Business Opportunities are evolving quite fast like a virus where as franchises are a more complex and ongoing life form. Franchising and business opportunity law must be separated completely if we are to make any relevant progress. If the goal of the Federal Trade Commission, which is somewhat unclear in concept is to protect the consumer and assist the industry with any sort of appropriate guidance, there can be no further consideration that business opportunities should remain in this line of discussion. Nowhere in the franchise rule should the name business opportunity occur unless describing a situation where a franchised business model did not meet the minimum criteria in initial fees or ongoing payments in the definitions of a franchise, however did qualify under a new definition in the Federal Trade Commission of business opportunity definition.

We must be careful in business when describing either business model to properly label the particular opportunity exactly what it is to prevent confusion. Government needs to also come up with a clear definition to help consumers.

supplements.

When the Federal Trade Commission considered additional regulatory over sight and disclosure of the franchise rule in 1995 the business models should have forever been severed as distinct and different species, even though one could say they were born of the same evolutionary branch. Now in 2005 we see that these two methods and business models do not even belong in the same ballpark at all. Business Opportunities are evolving quite fast like a virus where as franchises are a more complex and ongoing life form. Franchising and business opportunity law must be separated completely if we are to make any relevant progress. If the goal of the Federal Trade Commission, which is somewhat unclear in concept is to protect the consumer and assist the industry with any sort of appropriate guidance, there can be no further consideration that business opportunities should remain in this line of discussion. Nowhere in the franchise rule should the name business opportunity occur unless describing a situation where a franchised business model did not meet the minimum criteria in initial fees or ongoing payments in the definitions of a franchise, however did qualify under a new definition in the Federal Trade Commission of business opportunity definition.

We must be careful in business when describing either business model to properly label the particular opportunity exactly what it is to prevent confusion. Government needs to also come up with a clear definition to help consumers.

complex and ongoing life form. Franchising and business opportunity law must be separated completely if we are to make any relevant progress. If the goal of the Federal Trade Commission, which is somewhat unclear in concept is to protect the consumer and assist the industry with any sort of appropriate guidance, there can be no further consideration that business opportunities should remain in this line of discussion. Nowhere in the franchise rule should the name business opportunity occur unless describing a situation where a franchised business model did not meet the minimum criteria in initial fees or ongoing payments in the definitions of a franchise, however did qualify under a new definition in the Federal Trade Commission of business opportunity definition.

We must be careful in business when describing either business model to properly label the particular opportunity exactly what it is to prevent confusion. Government needs to also come up with a clear definition to help consumers.

cribing a situation where a franchised business model did not meet the minimum criteria in initial fees or ongoing payments in the definitions of a franchise, however did qualify under a new definition in the Federal Trade Commission of business opportunity definition.

We must be careful in business when describing either business model to properly label the particular opportunity exactly what it is to prevent confusion. Government needs to also come up with a clear definition to help consumers. Think about it.