BIM COULD BE A PYRAMID SCAM LOOKOUT

BUSINESS IN MOTION A CANADIAN COMPANY COULD BE NOTHING BUT A PYRAMID SCAM,LOOKOUT
http://www.bimcorporation.com/

HE DOES NOT EVEN PUT HIS PICTURE ON HIS SITES - THIS GOT SCAM WRITTEN ALL OVER IT.
http://www.fastpitchnetworking.com/buyprofile_nocookie.cfm?ContactID=52332712&ShowAds=Yes&CFID=7732093&CFTOKEN=49099660
http://www.xing.com/profile/Alan_Kippax

BETTER BUSNESS BUREAU RATING (BBB) D RATING FOR BIM
http://mwco.bbb.org/WWWRoot/Report.aspx?site=160&bbb=0107&firm=1174803
http://www.bbb.org/business-reviews/ratings/
http://www.bbb.org/business-reviews/ratings/overview.html

Re: Business in Motion (Earnfirm.com) - Is it a scam.

Quote:Originally Posted by CrimeBustersNow
This $5000+ challenge to Dove and Cruiser seems to have caused them to keep their beaks shut!!! Also word has it that the top BIM distributors are running scared ahead of the CBC Marketplace expose; especially those in high positions in the community, many time leveraged to the hilt; 50 Grand and more!!! Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, we did try to warn you, just like we tried to warn Pigeon King International and look were Galbraith and his investors are to-day.

Police probe January 6, 2009 Pigeon King failure triggers one of the largest fraud investigations in Waterloo history

Breadth and depth of this (Pigeon King scheme) is huge: Police
http://www.betterfarming.com/online-...o-history-1526,dave - CBNow

I OWNED A PIECE OF AMWAY MYSELF FOR A YEAR ALL I TOOK IN WAS ABOUT $200.00 AND WEEKLY PEP TALKS ABOUT GETTING PEOPLE SIGNED UP SO I COULD MAKE BIG BUCKS.

The lure of easy money ANDREW RYAN From Friday's Globe and Mail
February 6, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

It's common practice for snake-oil salesman to surface in a flailing economy. Money worries tend to make people even more susceptible to the siren's song of the fast fix, or the get-rich-quick scam. Have you walked by a lottery kiosk lately? Or possibly you've noticed the street poles plastered with flyers blazing messages like Work from Home! or Make $5,000 a Month! Or the late-night infomercials promising untold wealth in the fields of property flipping and selling useless junk on eBay. Imagine the freedom.The rubes are out there, and the lure of easy money has never been more tempting, which only demonstrates the public need for a program like Marketplace (tonight, CBC at 8:30)(10:30 AM SAT). Viewers need a consumer-affairs protector now, perhaps more than ever.In desperate times, you need a show like Marketplace to watch your back, says co-host Wendy Mesley, with a hint of mock seriousness. We've done a couple of stories this year driven by people trying to make money off desperate people, which takes you to a whole new level of cynicism. There's a lot of fear and doubt out there.

Marketplace host Wendy Mesley: I’m not afraid of powerful people. (TIBOR KOLLEY/THE GLOBE AND MAIL)Recently relocated to Friday night, Marketplace has been appointment television for viewers since 1972, when it was hosted by Joan Watson and George Finstad. Over the years, the sturdy CBC series has been an instrument of change, and influential in changing Canadian legislation and health and safety regulations; if you're miffed that you can't buy lawn darts any more, blame Marketplace.The current edition of Marketplace, hosted by the fearless Ms. Mesley and fellow CBC news veteran Erica Johnson, holds faithful to the show's original mandate of sound investigative journalism and, of course, taking corporate weasels and con artists to task.So far this season, Marketplace has gone after dodgy contractors and irresponsible cellphone companies. Tonight's show is fair warning for anyone who might still believe in the fast track to financial freedom.The Mesley-helmed feature opens on an average Monday night at an airport hotel in Toronto. Marketplace has taken hidden cameras into a seminar-style meeting for a company called Business in Motion, or BIM. Owner Allan Kippax comes on strong and folksy in his sales pitch, extolling attendees to shake off that unbelief, and get ready to hear some wonderful things here! What BIM International Corp. is selling: Exotic holiday discounts. BIM's $3,200 entrance fee includes a binder and membership in an online travel club, allegedly worth $9,000.Oh, the proviso? You are now a recruiter in the BIM family. Each new BIM member must in turn sell two $3,200 memberships to family or friends, and so on and so on, supposedly into infinity, but it never seems to work out that way.Even from the hidden-camera perspective, you can tell people are buying Kippax's hypnotic sales pitch.

He's like P.T. Barnum, Mesley says. Kippax is an amazing salesperson, extremely charming. You get into that room and it's very easy to get swayed by all the promises and the math. He tells people you can't lose, that it's easy money, and they had better get in quick, because it's going to blow! And the routine still works, remarkably. Kippax claims BIM has 8,000 Canadian members and revenue of $30-million a year, which speaks to the man's powers of persuasion.In the program's most unsettling scene, Kippax counsels a woman on her sales pitch. “Nobody never doesn't have the money, he tells her. It's just whether or not they're willing to go to the extra lengths to get it. Here's an example, your mother is dying in the hospital. You need $3,200 for an emergency operation. Are you going to get the money, yes or no? Says Mesley: It puts a whole new spin on the hard sell, or maybe it's a very old spin.All things commensurate, BIM is a plum target for the Marketplace treatment. BIM's promise of financial salvation sounds grand in these recessionary times, but you may not want to believe the hype. Mesley takes the BIM package to a real travel operator, who takes five minutes on Google to find that the BIM trip to Banff, at the supposed discount price of $604, is readily available elsewhere for $399; he finds the BIM Bahamas trip costing $604 for $379. A financial expert interviewed immediately deduces the company's prime directive of mass recruitment.The Marketplace investigation also reveals Kippax helped his cousin set up a similarly structured U.K.-based enterprise, called Treasure Traders Corp. Ltd., that somehow involved emeralds and the same routine of people at the bottom paying the people at the top. The company was shut down by the government there, and labelled a pyramid selling operation. Many Canadian investors lost money in the scheme.

Mesley locates a Kelowna, B.C., man who borrowed more than $6,000 to buy into the BIM empire, and then convinced his friends to do likewise. Since ejected from BIM for rule infraction, the man is angry, and wants some form of compensation or justice, but did he really sign up with BIM for the dream vacations? He stood to make a nice commission, or so he thought, Mesley says.The cautionary tale is typical of the current campaign of Marketplace, which becomes the lead-in show for CBC's the fifth estate as of next Friday. The report wraps with the traditional Marketplace payoff, wherein the subject of the show is permitted the opportunity to defend his or her actions.In this instance, Mesley sits down for an interview with Kippax, who defends the BIM mission statement straight away. We sell a product, and our product is exceptional,he says. When she broaches the suggestion of pyramid activity, Kippax's amiable salesman style disappears, his voice rising to a shout: “Never once, ever, have I been charged for anything to do with any of what you're talking about. So that's got to be something. … Clearly, every evidence you have is irrelevant. Shrugging off her subject's rageful indignation, Mesley pushes him harder.I'm used to mixing it up, says Mesley, who still fills in regularly on the anchor desk of CBC's The National. I was a political reporter for many years and I'm not afraid of powerful people. We always go in with a very solid case, otherwise we wouldn't be doing the story. It's my duty as a journalist to confront these people.

01 February 2009 @ 12:37 pm BIM arguments Chad Froese - BIM arguments

To the best of my memory, these are the arguments I’ve received so far for Business In Motion International.I have not attended a meeting, so it is possible that there may be more information/arguments. However, I have researched this a great deal, including contacting the Better Business Bureau, RCMP, and the Competition Bureau of Canada, and many of these arguments will not benefit from additional claims or data. I would be justified at this point to refuse to attend a presentation, never mind committing to an investment of thousands of dollars and to recruiting others (usually friends and family).

1.Q: What makes businesses like Microsoft, McDonald’s, and Walmart successful? A: A revolutionary distribution system.

a.This claim is suspect, since it confuses cause with effect. If these companies indeed possess markedly better systems to distribute their product, it is only on account of the product’s (or service’s) success. Microsoft originally stems from Gates’ programming expertise (among others) and continues with product popularity. McDonalds may not produce quality food, but it is distinctive in taste and cheap. Walmart is indeed a leader in logistics, but this would still be useless without either decent products or a better choice of products than most.

2.(Stemming from 1) BIM has a revolutionary distribution system, therefore it too will be successful.(This also seems to be used to establish BIM as a legitimate business.)

a.Distribution is not used consistently; a bait-and-switch. (1.) intends to establish the importance of a distribution system, and in (2.), BIM’s distribution system is implied, but is left undefined. Without more info, I can only guess that BIM’s method of recruiting new people to buy/sell product and recruit more is then labelled as distribution, which is very different from the examples given.

b.(1.a) is not addressed: what is a good (even revolutionary, as is claimed) system for distribution if the product is not successful, or even marketable?

i.My review of a product proved underwhelming: many hotels around the world could be booked for low prices, but primarily in off-season times. Furthermore, airfare was not included, meaning typical and easily available package deals (hotel + airfare) are cheaper. The counterargument made was that this product was merely one of many. When I asked for an example, none was forthcoming.

ii.One tendency of typical pyramid schemes is product loading, where new recruits are pressured to buy the product, often in large amounts. Return policies may be non-existent or disadvantageous. I do not know if BIM includes these policies, but it would be interesting to find out, since this reveals the product as being unmarketable; a business with a product few or no people will buy is untenable.

3.85% of business is in distribution and 15% is in manufacturing, therefore you want to be in distribution.

a.The initial claim is

i.A statistic, which may or may not be true. What is the source, and how reliable? Furthermore, is the number debatable?

ii.Vague--for example, what is included in distribution? Sales, shipping, logistics?

iii.A false dichotomy: there is more to business than distribution and manufacturing, regardless of how they are defined. Where does something as important to business as management/administration fit?

b.Inconsistent use and definition of distribution, as mentioned earlier.

c.Conclusion does not necessarily follow from claim. For example, if the market is over-saturated with businesses specializing in distribution, then the conclusion should be reversed. The conclusion only follows if it is assumed that there are more opportunities in distribution than in manufacturing, and this is not addressed.

4.Detractors of BIM must show/prove that it is a pyramid.

a.Misunderstanding/lack of understanding of burden of proof.

i.Burden of proof should lie upon those asking for an investment of time/effort from others. BIM must convince prospects of value or returns on their investments.

ii.Burden of proof should upon BIM to define itself as only an MLM (which is legal) and not a pyramid (which is illegal) if it exhibits characteristics of the latter (1-6 from the RCMP, 7-10 from the Competition Act of Canada):

1.High pressure sales tactics

2.Emphasis on recruitment over products/services

3.Secretive recruitment/information meetings

4.Reliance on word of mouth/relationships instead of advertising.

5.High-yield return in short term

6.Vague explanations of how the business works

7.Participants pay money for the right to receive compensation for recruiting new participants

8.A participant is required to buy a specific quantity of products, other than at cost price for the purpose of advertising, before the participant is allowed to join the plan or advance within the plan

9.Participants are knowingly sold commercially unreasonable quantities of the product or products (this practice is called inventory loading)

10.Participants are not allowed to return products on reasonable commercial terms.

5.Businesses like Amway, Tupperware, and Norwex are successful (and some for a long period of time) therefore BIM too will succeed.

a.Said businesses are MLMs but do not fit the definition of a pyramid. In general, these businesses maintain more focus on their products/services than on recruitment.

b.This argument assumes that BIM is not a pyramid.

c.Even if BIM is shown to have similarities to flourishing MLMs, its success is not guaranteed.More than 70% of businesses fail within the first 5 years.

d.If BIM can be shown to be a pyramid, then it is mathematically guaranteed to fail in a short period of time. In this failure, the majority of participants will lose their money. Furthermore, if Revenue Canada gets involved, all participants will lose their money.

6.Several police officers are involved in BIM (so, it is implied, BIM must be legal/legitimate).

a.Members of the police may be less likely to engage in illegal or unethical ventures, but this would not be the first or last time that there were exceptions. It may also be argued that there may be officers who are not aware or mindful of business competition laws.

7.BIM is not being investigated/has not been shut down by RCMP or a government agency (again, implying that BIM is legal/legitimate).

a.Said investigation may not be publically or widely known. It would not be the first time an investigation was kept under wraps until charges/arrests could be confidently made.

b.Said investigation may occur at a later date.

c.Police and government agencies do not have the resources necessary to pursue all illegal activity.

d.A false dichotomy is implied, that a business is either legal or under investigation. This is simply not true.

8.Alan Kippax (head/primary contact for BIM) has learned from his mistakes with Treasure Traders International (which shut down after a Supreme Court of Ontario case) and has set up BIM legally.

a.The reference to TTI has a “mistake” is a gross over-simplification. It is highly suspicious that one could mistakenly set up a pyramid which leaves thousands of people out of millions of dollars, and sue its most vocal critic in a case which goes to the second highest court in Canada. If doubt arose over TTI’s legality, the Competition Bureau of Canada offers to examine business plans for free to ensure legal compliance.

9.You cannot dismiss BIM unless you have tried it yourself.

a.This is true for subjective experiences: everyone has a personal response to something like a scary movie. However, this only a matter of taste; whether someone likes it. Likes or dislikes are superfluous when the legality and ethical nature of a venture is in question.

i.The implication may also be that objections to BIM are primarily emotional. This may or may not be true, but is still secondary when legality/ethics are in question.

b.Another implication is that insufficient information for objection is available without becoming a participant in BIM. This is not true if the venture in question exhibits several or all traits listed in (4.a.ii).

10.Appeal to personal character and success in a legitimate business.

a.The implication is that someone of integrity will not engage in illegal behaviour. This is unsupportable, and feasible only if the claim is weakened to that of: someone of integrity is less likely to engage in illegal behaviour.

b.Another implication is that someone who has had success in a legitimate business will not engage in illegal behaviour, or participate in a suspect business enterprise. As above, this is unsupportable, and only feasible if the claim is weakened to that of a probability.

i.To err is human. This is not just an antiquated proverb: it has been proven in scientific studies that even experts make mistakes in their own fields, often willingly ignoring troubling trends or evidence for emotional or ideological reasons, and then blaming others for failure.