To act like STE shares such data that you claim I should have assessed is the joke
Previous comments: “When a Financial Analyst researches a company, we research many factors to determine the true value of a company. I understand you’re just a blogger looking to garner readers, but you do a disservice to your readers without proper proof of the comments you make.” – Does STE publish the number of members that cancel their membership each month and allow prospective members to review this data? No. Do they publish how many members are making money at a faster rate than their initial signup+monthly expenses to maintain membership? As a Financial Analyst, if that’s what you are, I’m sure you’re familiar with Sarbox, 10-Ks and all those nice “publicly disclosed documents”. During the telecon I had called into, some typical aggressive hypester ran through the whole presentation, got everyone worked up over how much money they were going to make, NEVER ASKED IF ANYONE HAD A QUESTION, and promptly ended the telecon. This is fact. This sounds a bit different to me than a quarterly report, Analyst meetings and public disclosure that goes with publicly traded companies and I’m sure you can tell the difference.
“You can not sit there and guess why people cancel and claim it as fact. Truth is you don’t know, and neither do I, but I do know this” – I never purported to know specifically why people canceled. What I do know is that I was disturbed by the number of cancellations I saw in the top of the pyramid of members I was looking at when I had access to one of the early members’ accounts. It really begged the question as to what they knew that I hadn’t yet figured out; heck these guys had signed up MONTHS before me and were way up in the food chain and they were dropping out? That caused me to investigate some more. Regarding transparency, even the guy who signed me up couldn’t answer my questions. He had to go back up the chain multiple levels to ask a guy who was pretty close to the top to ask them and then get back to me. None of these common questions were written in an FAQ, evident in the presentation, etc. Perhaps things have improved now, but my initial review was in the early stages and I am of the opinion that at that time, the amount of information available to prospective members was inadequate .
I’d love to see it
“All 22 people in my business have never done a search on google for a review of STE, that would be 100% of my team.” – How do you know? Are these 22 lemmings under you ready to run, run into the sea after you? The fact that you yourself came across my initial review in the early stages; were you not performing research on the internet on STE? So, you researched it on the internet, but none of your 22 did? So, you asked 22 people, “Did you even Google STE?”. If so, you’re socially awkward. If so, and they answered yes, they would be implying that they didn’t trust you, so they would then feel compelled to say, “No”. Trust me, 1 out of 22 people who sign up do research online or you’re working with extremely gullible people.
“Another example of half truths? The commission rules are so complex, left leg/right leg, it’s just too confusing! I remember reading that.. It’s confusing? at least 1/3 points come from one side, 2/3 from the other. This is confusing? I remember reading a full paragraph on the complexities of the commission system in a review.. When I did my own research I laughed out loud.” – The commission scheme was deceptive in my opinion at that time. So much so, that it took much back and forth to even have my questions answered by existing members. It’s not as simple as 1/3 and 2/3. There was no information on how members are placed beneath you, how you place new members, what happens if your one leg gets so heavy that you can’t make the 1/3 necessary on the other leg – what happens then? It wasn’t clear. No demonstration, etc. – I thought it took some guy 10 years to build this website; they couldn’t come up with a decent video on how it works? It was some powerpoint presentation that had mistakes in it, which they eventually updated.