(A parody based upon a note from Quixtar's Ken McDonald to Forbes Magazine)

June 11, 2001 Letters Editor Forbes Magazine 60 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10011 Dear Editor, We looked forward to an article about Quaxtar in Forbes’ June 25 "Best of the Web" issue, as we felt the reporter had gone to great lengths to ensure a fair and balanced story about our business, and potentially even a positive one. Since last November, Karen Bannan interviewed numerous subjects for the story and great efforts were made by Quaxtar staff to provide accurate and timely information. The resulting article, however, did not provide a positive portrait of the company. Possibly this was the result of "stinkin' thinkin'" at Forbes. Everyone must know by now it is more important for us to be positive than it is to be truthful. Or maybe it was a result of a bias against Quaxtar’s business model. After all, who in their right mind would think this thing would grow when the model taught by uplines teaches IBOs to spend more on promotion and motivation than their own sales generates in gross profit? In any case, Forbes did a great disservice to our positive self-image, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of individuals across the U.S. and Canada, who are reporting losses on their taxes due to their affiliation with Quaxtar. Now will have to double up on our motivational tape time to get our self esteem back The headline – "Amway.com" – reinforces the fact that the market believes Quaxtar is just a make over of Amway, and only confuses readers because that URL exists in support of Quaxtar’s sister company, Amway Corp. An accurate account would have noted that Quaxtar, like Amway, is a subsidiary of Altra-con Inc, and the difference between the two is the spelling of their names. After all Bill Britt, Dexter Yager, Ron Puryear and a host of other diamonds still run our business even though it is now called Quaxtar The article wasn’t an examination of Quaxtar’s success. How could it be when Quaxtar success was a direct result of cannibalized sales from Amway? It was more likely an expression of truth, rather than an article based on the positive thinking and manipulation of the truth like we are used to here at Altra-Con. How else should we interpret the fact that the reporter interviewed a number of Independent Business Owners (IBOs) completely satisfied with their Quaxtar experience, yet the only comments published were those of one individual who foolishly overspent on their upline's business support materials, before dropping out? Of course we at Altra-icon have done little to curb the tools abuses that Rich DeVoss highlighted 18 years ago in the "Directly Speaking" tapes. How else could we explain the accurate description of business meetings as "cult-like?" Just go to one and see for yourself. Or the assertion that products are overpriced, when there are numerous comparisons provided on the WEB? Maybe just do one for yourself and find out the truth. An accurate account would have noted that IBOs do not earn money for registering other IBOs. The big money is earned by just a few, selling books, tapes and seminars to all the new people! They also earn a little income when people they’ve introduced to Quaxtar make purchases as customers and new business owners. Quaxtar does not advertise, instead relying on the marketing efforts of hundreds of thousands of individuals who earn bonuses when people they’ve brought to www.quaxtar.com actually buy products. Of course it costs much more to promote and motivate the IBO sales force than is paid by Quaxtar, but hey, we still made a profit even if most IBOs did foolishly over promote their business only to lose money. We did little to tell them how to run a profitable retail business. Heaven forbid we ever enforce the Retail Sales Rule, which would be a clear signal on how to run a more profitable business. Geez, we might lose the sales to the pyramiders if we did that. Why else would they buy over priced products if they didn't believe it was an "investment" in their business and their future? As the article stated, the Quaxtar personal referral model has resulted in incredible cannibalization of sales from Amway and a customer retention rate few other businesses – online or off – can match, except that of Amway. Most any other large companies have paid out more in salaries than the $143 million that Quaxtar paid out in bonuses. Our IBOs earned about $4 net profit per hour, a wage less than minimum wage working as independent contractors for us. What other company can get labor as cheap as we can in North America? Possibly only those in Mexico and overseas. When the results of Quaxtar’s second year are final this fall, many will be surprised at the growth the company will report in its sophomore season. Quaxtar has successfully absorbed all North American operations of Amway. Last year maybe half of the Amway IBOs switched to Quixtar. Now that all have been brought under Quaxtar's wing, it will allow us to report record growth and at the same time generate few, if any new net sales for Altra-con. This type of spin was once reserved only for President Clinton. With this slight of hand trick we should be able to boast $1 billion in sales and make everyone think we are very success. This is all part of being positive, not necessarily truthful, as we are so famous for. In the end, Quaxtar’s most important critics are its affiliated IBOs, who work for peanuts pushing the low sales $200/month business model. They are still dropping out at a 50% rate each year just like they did in Amway. IBOs will be disappointed, of course, that a Forbes article would inaccurately opine that a Quaxtar business will likely lead to shelves full of shampoo bottles, when they know very well that IBOs will have garages full of motivational tapes instead! – that’s the upline's job to supply the tapes while we inventory the $6 bottles of shampoo. What is more disappointing, however, is that they will have lost trust in what once was a positive source of business information. But that’s Qaixtar's loss, not Forbes. Sincerely, Ronald McDonald Managing Director

Back to the home page

June 11, 2001

Letters Editor

Forbes Magazine

60 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10011

Dear Editor,

We looked forward to an article about Quixtar in Forbes’ June 25 "Best of the Web" issue, as we felt the reporter had gone to great lengths to ensure a fair and balanced story about our business.

Since last November, Karen Bannan interviewed numerous subjects for the story and great efforts were made by Quixtar staff to provide accurate and timely information.

The resulting article, however, did not provide an accurate portrait of the company. Possibly this was the result of inaccurate reporting. Perhaps it was a result of no fact-checking by Forbes. Or maybe it was a result of a bias against Quixtar’s business model in the editorial department. In any case, Forbes did a great disservice to its readers, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of individuals across the U.S. and Canada who enjoy their affiliation with Quixtar.

The headline – "Amway.com" – reinforces mistakes made throughout the article labeling Quixtar as a subsidiary of Amway, and only confuses readers because that URL exists in support of Quixtar’s sister company, Amway Corp. An accurate account would have noted that Quixtar, like Amway, is a subsidiary of Alticor Inc. The article wasn’t an examination of Quixtar’s success. It was more likely an expression of opinions that normally would have appeared in an editorial, rather than an article based on objective reporting.

How else should we interpret the fact that the reporter interviewed a number of Independent Business Owners (IBOs) completely satisfied with their Quixtar experience, yet the only comments published were those of one individual who foolishly overspent in support of his business before dropping out? How else could we explain the inexplicable description of business meetings as "cult-like?" Or the assertion that products are overpriced, when no effort is made to provide comparisons?

An accurate account would have noted that IBOs do not earn money for registering other IBOs.

They earn income when people they’ve introduced to Quixtar make purchases as customers and new business owners. Quixtar does not advertise, instead relying on the marketing efforts of hundreds of thousands of individuals who earn bonuses when people they’ve brought to www.Quixtar.com actually buy products.

As the article stated, this personal referral model has resulted in incredible sales and a customer retention rate few other businesses – online or off – can match. Few companies can say that they helped others earn $143 million in one year, which is what Quixtar did in its very first year. When the results of Quixtar’s second year are final this fall, many will be surprised at the growth the company has seen in its sophomore season.

In the end, Quixtar’s most important critics are its affiliated IBOs, who work with us constantly to fine-tune our business model. They will be disappointed, of course, that a Forbes article would inaccurately opine that a Quixtar business will likely lead to shelves full of shampoo bottles, when they know very well that IBOs do not stock product – that’s Quixtar’s job. What is more disappointing, however, is that they will have lost trust in what once was a reliable source of accurate business information. But that’s Forbes’ loss, not ours.

Sincerely,

Ken McDonald

Managing Director