Breaking Update December 6th: Is RippLn ready to R.I.P. Or Is There More To The Story?

Breaking RippLn News December 6th, 2013: 

I just received a call from Brian Underwood and the RippLn Chat App is now live in both Apple and Andriod Platforms. There will e a special State of Play call tonight where the RippLn team will share more details.

For Apple Users:

For Android Users:


Over the Thanksgiving Holiday I started seeing a few articles come out on RippLn and the lack of communication coming from their camp. Then I started receiving some text, emails and social messages asking why RippLn communication had gone dormant.

Now I have to tell you, I was a little surprised, because I was receiving emails talking about the weekly calls, when I realized people were watching their Blog and social profiles.

And, when it came to the critics, I realized they were asking some good questions, so I reached out to Brian Underwood, co-founder and CEO of RippLn to ask a few questions of my own.



Spread The News!

47 thoughts on “Breaking Update December 6th: Is RippLn ready to R.I.P. Or Is There More To The Story?”

  1. I sure hope Troy was joking there, because otherwise I have to wonder about his sanity.

    The Rippln Chat app is not world-class, and was likely developed by a small team of contract indian mobile devs.

    Paper is a world-class app, designed and developed by the top engineers in the industry.

    If the Rippln Chat app has any similarity, it’s a pale shadow of what Facebook actually executed. That’s just more evidence that Rippln had no idea how to execute its grandiose schemes, not any kind of pipe dream that maybe someone wants or cares about Rippln enough to purchase it or its shoddy source code.

  2. One limitation of text based communication is that it sometimes lacks that sort of “tone of voice quality.” If Troy just made a joke I want to give him credit, it would have been a good one.

    Rippln was not a technology company. They were an internet marketing company with a multilevel pay plan that used mobile apps as a sales pitch. Apps weren’t even their primary commissionable product, monthly membership fees were. They either knew or had no excuse not to know by the end of September that they had not created an effective app distribution model and in the five months since that they have billed their affiliates for, they’ve stopped even pretending they could fix it.

    Brian Underwood, Jonathan Budd, Jim Bunch and Michael Rutherford are all very publicly connected to the colossal failure that Rippln became. And for as toxic as the fallout should be, this is network marketing. There is nothing that will stop the MLMHelpDesk’s of the world from calling Brian a “great leader” when he starts his next company.

    Ripple Labs is a real technology company who’s reputation is much like their product, digital currency. Through absolutely no fault of their own a limited subset of the public at large confuses their reputation with that of Rippln and they have never done anything at all to deserve that. As early as last May they registered their dispute of Rippln’s trademark application and in the time that’s followed nothing short of a lawsuit has been able to resolve this issue.

    Rippln has created no value that anyone is attempting to acquire. Rippln has created a negative value, a reputational deficit that destroys value of anyone associated with it. Ripple Labs wants it to be very publicly known that they are not associated with Rippln and they further want to make sure that Rippln does not further damage the “informational space” Ripple Labs operates in.

  3. Well said!

    G, something I have noticed and wondered about, is …

    For a company which seems to have not executed, has not paid out the App Share, and who has had their share of criticism, they seemed to have had some impact on some folks.

    I say that because, if the company was just another failed company, then I really don’t think there would be a trademark lawsuit.

    If the numbers were just a quick rise and then a fall, why would a company take the time to file a trademark lawsuit, when the evidence would point to a disappearance of the issue?

    I keep asking myself, if there is a possibility the technology that has been created is really worth something, and some tech companies have seen that?

    I noticed the FaceBook is releasing “Paper” this week. This is their new communication app, and there are some features in it which look similar to RippLn’s chat app.

    Could a 3rd party company owned by one of the biggest tech companies in the world be suing RippLn over a trademark, but in reality hope to gain access to the source code?

  4. “If they (RippLn) don’t execute, they will be the greatest story never told.”

    A little too grandiose in my opinion. The only thing they were even remotely competent at was getting their story out so it’s hard to claim it was never told and their failure to deliver on anything they ever promised makes me question what you think was ever “great” about this company.

    Sorry but to pretend otherwise would be to feed into a narrative of falsehood. A wise man proportions belief to the evidence, the evidence here is that this company is an unmitigated failure.

    I don’t care how aspirational or inspirational their sales pitch may have been, history is the fairest judge of their ability to deliver on their promises. While I don’t know why App Share isn’t paying, we all know it isn’t paying. This is arguably Rippln’s biggest failure it’s but by no means it’s only one.


    I know what it means, we all know what it means but sometimes it means nothing in a MLM context. Brian Underwood is a “Great MLM Leader” and one of Troy’s friends but he hasn’t shown his face in about six weeks. Has anything of import happened in that time?

    Well, Rippln has been sued, outcome uncertain but it’s hard to pretend this isn’t an issue that might impact the affiliate force and to his credit Brian isn’t pretending that it isn’t.

    He would have needed to tell them this happened before he could pretend it wasn’t a potential problem but Brain NEVER told his affiliates about this. Leadership.

    App Share, Share Free Apps get Real Money. Hell of a sales pitch but where’s the money? Should have been paid January 15th but hasn’t.

    What has Brian told his affiliates about why they haven’t been paid.,…….Nothing. Leadership.

    I don’t pretend to know why App Share isn’t paying but I wish to posit a notion to all MLM affiliates considering joining Brian Underwood’s next company. If you weren’t getting paid like the company promised, would you like to know why?

    If you would, perhaps Brian Underwood’s next opportunity is something you should take a pass on. After all, his current opportunity is something he refuses to face his followers about, until he proves otherwise why would you be any different?

    No one is holding Brian accountable, either for his failure to deliver on his promises or for his failure to hold himself accountable to the people who believed in those promises.

  5. David,

    Well your rebuttal is an interesting one to explore. You asked me to provide my insight and thoughts and I did, then you seem to attack me. 🙂

    1. I CAN and Do say the vision of the founders to create a community where everyone has an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the monetization based on their engagement is solid!

    I don’t see where this is on the right or wrong side of truth! Feel free to explain in more detail where you are coming from.

    2. You may want to go and read my comment slower and in more detail. I NEVER questioned the coders for RippLn, And I at no time even came close to suggesting they were incompetent.

    As a matter of fact my comment centered 100% around the Marketing Machine and that fact they got ahead of the tech team.

    If a marketing team is making promises, and suggesting release dates that are not in line with what the tech team has planned, then issues come up. People hear what you say and to them it is a promise set in stone!

    I never suggested the tech team caused any of the issues! Although, their original CTO did leave their office for the airport and died of a heart attack… That was 100% an unforeseen issue that no one saw coming.

    3. When you state “if the model were valid” I am not sure where you are coming from. Can you clarity?

    When I state I think the business model is valid, I am speaking directly to the model of rewarding the everyday average user of a social network. nor specially RippLn.

    And that model is valid and is being tested in several ways across many networks. Klout, as an example has created a small version by providing perks from advertisers based on the social engagement of the users.

    Now, money isn’t changing hands, but I think it is a start and goes to show that people are looking for ways to reward the end user.

    So, if you are stating that it’s not valid to monetize a social network where everyone can be rewarded based on their engagement and the engagement they help create… Well, time will tell.

    4. How do you see us being on different sides of history when looking at the company?

    I stated the following… “If RippLn doesn’t execute, they will be the biggest story NEVER told.”

    Based on where things are today, without additional funding, the company doesn’t look like it will execute at the level needed to engage the masses, which means “it will be the biggest story never told.”

    5. Well I see what you mean with Guessaroo. As for the chat app… I disagree, the main issue as I see it with the chat app, was most folks had already gone on to do something else. When a community, or as Seth Godin calls it a Tribe, dies, and then the community becomes a ghost town. And that is what I see with the chat app.

    6. Well, at best you make a subjective conclusion on why RippLn is still open and alive… But I might do the same thing if I didn’t have all the facts.

    I have read where the AppLift issues have been talked about. Hopefully they can get that fixed. I was concerned with the amount of people in the community, and the fact many are in different countries.

    7. Well your conclusion that the leadership must be “delusional, incompetent, or fraud to funnel money to the top” is an interesting conclusion.

    Knowing your worldview on the subject, I can see how you would feel this way.

    And I am sure that folks who dealt with other business men who were trying to create something might have heard the same thing.

    What man in his right mind, thinks he can light a while city? Or a man who thinks, h can mass produce handmade cars? Or a man who told the world he would control the world’s PC market with his software.

    I am the first to stand my original statement “If RippLn doesn’t execute, they will be the greatest story NEVER told.”

    But, someone somewhere will create the model that works and rewards all community members some how for their engagement in the community.

    David, it is always an honor to have you stop by and add value to the RippLn conversation. Your insight and expertise helps everyone.

  6. Troy, you can’t say you think their vision is valid without being on the wrong side of the truth. Also, you’re completely wrong: if you hire competent developers unanticipated problems don’t happen, or are dealt with quickly, and as I’ve been telling you for months, the problems they needed to solve are solved already.

    If the model were valid, in spite of the incompetence of the leaders, there would be hard data showing the kind of growth/downloads promised. We see the opposite if we look at the history of the company.

    Per CEO Brian Underwood, the release of Guessaroo was supposed to validate the model, Rippln’s 1.4 million eyeballs engaging and driving massive numbers of downloaders and in-app-purchases.

    In spite of the celebration, they got less than 10% of the expected downloads the first month and the app faded into obscurity.

    We saw the same thing repeated with the chat app.

    And now, your pal Brian is holding off on closing the company just long enough to do another billing cycle for powered-up players, removing any comments on the official page referring to Jim Bunch’s letter saying the close was imminent… Not mentioning the trademark lawsuit or the problems with AppLift…

    Rippln was either a result of delusional, incompetent leadership who had no business attempting anything in the mobile space, or it was a fraud designed to funnel money to the top. Guess which Brian’s choice to hold off on announcing a close looks like?

  7. James,

    Great question you ask!

    I do not feel like a pawn or duped.

    If you have followed my coverage of RippLn, then you should realize that I have never recanted my original statement on the company…

    “If they (RippLn) don’t execute, they will be the greatest story never told.”

    Not only did I state that here on the blog, and in my personal videos, I also stated it from the RippLn stage, and they posted it on their website.

    Now as for the lessons that can be learned from what we current see from the RippLn story, and what we still do not fully know, from my personal perspective is this…

    1. The marketing started way to early. Without a solid product or service to launch it is never wise to launch a massive marketing campaign.

    Although it is the norm to “pre-launch” a company, the reality is that a company is either in business or it’s not! The Marketing team at RippLn are at the top of the game! So when you take the top of several niches and put them together, and they see the big picture, they will start the buzz.

    However, in most cases marketers are not techies, let alone coders who realize at any time there could be a glitch in the code, changes in the 3rd party platforms, or any number of other reasons, why the project doesn’t release on time.

    So to over promote any product/service before it has been fully beta tested and is in the final stages of release is a tight rope walk, that has ONLY one of two outcomes!

    2. It is always wise to get a solid legal perspective on a new compensation model, before announcing it to the world.

    RippLn came out of the gate with what I called a licensing model. I have discussed this model in the past and question the validity of it being a legal compensation structure based on the current state and federal laws governing income opportunity compensation plans.

    They hired MLM Attorney Kevin Thompson to review, and he also agreed the compensation model could raise red flags and cause regulatory concerns.

    When the company had to change the comp plan this early in the launch, it will cause a slow down in momentum. It will also cause some (not sure how many) who had joined due to what looked like a passive income stream, to take their people and move to new programs where it would not take work to make money.

    With as many changes as were announced over time in the comp plan, I am confident to say,being tweaked to make sure it would create enough breakage to the company to continuing funding the programming costs and others infrastructure needs.

    Although this is typical when a business plan has been built around one comp plan, and now has to be tweaked to fit the new model. It doesn’t make reps feel confident at times.

    Part of creating a solid comp plan that rewards all the people in the LOS is to make sure it works before the marketing machine starts promoting it.

    Again, in the case of RippLn, again, we saw a fantastic marketing machine promoting the fire out of a platform and comp plan, that was not finished, and that raised concerns from day one.

    3. Launching a solid network marketing company takes anywhere from $1 million to $5 million depending on the product, infrastructure and marketing campaign.

    Launching a network marketing tech company takes from $4 million to $10 million depending on the technology product being developed.

    In the case of RippLn, I think they started off with a solid bank account, and liquid investors, but the amount of money that is needed to stay ahead of the competition, seems to be eating away at the reserves and the investors have to make a decision… Find some partners who can help us take it to the next level, or close it down.

    It is my understanding they are still in talks with several different potential partners at this time. Two of which came through my office.

    4. Going into business is a risk at any level. But the goal is to minimize the risk if possible. This goes for founders of companies and the independent professionals who buy into the vision of the founders.

    In the case of RippLn I personally believe the vision is valid. And either RippLn or someone will soon create a model where some of the money earned from the social engagement will trickle down to the people who are fueling the money train.

  8. So Troy at point to you feel like you where a pawn or dupped? I think those who follow you and your advice are worthy of your time to render an honest explanation concerning Ripplin. No parsing of words or as you say splitting hairs… just the unvarnished truth. I think this is a teaching moment but no one seems to be interested in calling the to order and beginning the lesson. How about you?

  9. Rippln is dead! Text below is from M. Rutherford’s team FB page. I think it is a copy of Jonathan Budd’s original message to his team.
    Michael Rutherford

    Hi Team,

    Hope you all had some
    amazing holidays and
    are starting the year off
    fresh! You deserve it.

    I want to give you an update
    on what’s happening with Rippln
    as it’s been a while, and I know
    many of you are probably curious.

    First off, I just want to start by
    saying that EVERYONE did
    an absolutely phenomenal job
    building Rippln coming out of
    the gates.

    You guys and gals broke every
    record that existed in this industry,
    and we caused a genuine viral
    storm unlike anything that had
    ever been seen before.

    From the start of Rippln, it was
    always our intention to do something
    that hadn’t been done before…

    … and frankly, I think all of us knew
    the risks we were taking on.

    It’s not easy to do something that
    hasn’t been done before, and you
    face enormous challenges & roadblocks
    that are very difficult to see in advance.

    This is what happened with Rippln.

    Even though we did a lot of things
    right coming out of the gate, there
    were still a lot of challenges happening
    behind the scenes that were very difficult
    to solve with the team & operating budget
    we had.

    In hindsight, which is always 20/20,
    Rippln truly needed a $3-5million venture
    capital budget from the start, along with a
    lot of other resources we didn’t have to really
    have it’s best chance at succeeding.

    We came incredibly far with our
    technology, working with what we
    had, but as is often the case in technology
    start ups, success is more about “iteration”
    then it is picking a product off a shelf &
    selling that for years to come.

    We found many flaws with the model,
    & it required constant change & development
    to continue to iterate the model to perfection.

    Unfortunately, Rippln lost it’s financing
    capability to keep going in the Fall of last year,
    and without proper financing there was no
    way to continue to build out the technology
    to get it to a mainstream worthy product.

    The owners & investors of Rippln put in
    over $2,000,000 of their own money…
    which is absolutely NO small amount of
    money at all. It stretched everyone in
    big ways. But unfortunately a lot of money
    was spent in costly learning curves, & in the
    technology game we’re playing in, much
    more is often required.

    It was NOT for lack of effort, or trying,
    that the company lost it’s runway.

    Currently we’re in the final stages
    of negotiations to determine if a new partner
    & financer will be brought on to finish
    building out the next phases of Rippln 2.0.

    These phases would be the cumulative learnings
    of where we were at to get the product mainstream,
    and would be the CLOSEST model to what
    excited everyone from the beginning.

    I will update you as soon as I know more,
    but for now, I thought it was important that
    you knew what was going on so you could
    make plans for your own lives & businesses

    The best part of Rippln for me was getting
    to know all of you in a deeper way, & the
    relationships that were forged.

    I consider that an HONOR, and I’m very
    thankful for it, & for your courage to step
    into the unknown & dare greatly.

    I would do it all over again in a heartbeat
    if it was the difference between never going
    for your dreams because of the risk it may
    not work.

    There are no guarantees in life. Cowards
    sit on the sidelines. And no one can say
    that about all of us.

    Hopefully this update brings a little understanding,
    and I’ll follow up again as soon as I know more.

  10. That’s a nice, safe prediction, as that’s precisely the flowchart for these kinds of cases.

    From a cursory examination of the documents, I can see that there’s plenty of evidence for damages by trademark confusion (I’ve seen this myself as I’ve been following Ripple) , that USPTO never approved Rippln’s trademark, that Ripple Labs had an existing trademark…

    I may be wrong,but from what I’ve read it’s rare for a trademark case like this to settle.

    In any case, there’s a mountain of evidence that Rippln plays fast and loose with intellectual property. They use unlicensed stock photos,in official marketing material, other companies’ logos without attribution or permission, etc. A pattern of reckless behavior with other companies’ IP could be established.

    I have never seen a legitimate company engage in marketing using unlicensed or copyrighted/trademarked logos like that.

    I also have never seen a legitimate company keep information relevant to its ability to perform (such as trademark lawsuits) from its investors (which in a manner of speaking, affiliates are: they invest time).

    Of course, as everyone but Troy Dooly and Rippln affiliates seem to know, it’s not a legitimate company and never has been. It’s a pyramid scheme per exhaustive analysis in the realscam thread.

  11. Well this has been going on for a while. Although, I do not know all the facts, I do know that the RippLn trademark attorneys only do trademark work, and are pretty good at what they do.

    I predict that when the discovery is complete, we will learn if a court decides there is an infringement, or if one side or another settles out of court.

  12. Troy, having paid attention to the social media numbers, as I’m sure you have if you’ve been even remotely involved with your client, the numbers on Facebook have gone from 11-15K/day to 7-5K/day to 200/day over the course of the past few months.

    The curve has been almost exclusively downward, and to put it in perspective, that’s a 750X reduction in FB engagement.

    The other social media numbers (Twitter/G+/Pinterest) are just as dismal.

    Even Google and Alexa show a distinct downward trend.

    To say “we don’t know” is crazy. The numbers are public, accessible, and anyone with a basic understanding of google search can figure out how to find them. I can paste numerous histograms from various analytics demonstrating the opposite of growth.

    What kind of company doesn’t track this sort of thing very carefully, anyway? Especially a company which purports to base its business model on “engaged eyeballs”.

    As of a few months ago the per-country numbers on Rippln’s website didn’t agree with the total, and the way they were being incremented was provably not real data, but someone using a random number generator.

    (For example, ALL the countries would update rand(500) each cycle, regardless of time of day.)

    I know for a fact they made up download/revenue numbers for Guessaroo. The numbers in the document I saw which they provided to affiliates was quite a bit different from what public sources like distimo showed.

    It is entirely normal for small MLM companies to inflate numbers as you know, but the extent to which it has been happening at Rippln indicates something is going on.

    But you can’t say “we don’t know if they have growth or not”. They are at a small fraction of the engagement they had compared to April/May and it is just getting worse.

  13. A: It’s not a very good app.

    B: A guy (McClendon) who lies about having a PhD in neuroscience is not an educator, he is a con artist. The coaching programs are not education, they are worthless to anyone outside of Rippln and their credibility can easily be impeached by anyone with a psych background.

    C: The martian smart watch to the best of my knowledge sold less than 50 units.

    D: It would be egregiously irresponsible for recruitment to continue with the current issues with engagement. The platform is useless as a means to deliver the promises of the hype machine without a significant amount of people participating. Yet, recruitment continues and the idea is promulgated in official videos that one can become very rich doing this Rippln thing.

    I will ask you again, Troy. At what point, exactly, do you stop advising people that Rippln is a legitimate opportunity?

  14. By that logic, you’d think using the SMS app built into both iOS and Android phones would be even better. It can send text/video/audio/pictures and has access to contacts.

  15. The easiest way to figure it all out is to review the corporate filings and see who is listed as the managers/members of the LLC. Or review who the corporate officers are of the corporation.

  16. I give up! JB, Jim and Brian always refer to themselves as co-founders on all their videos. I was at Dallas but I don’t say i’m a co-founder along with the others that attended. The point is JB is Out along with Russell Brunson and a bunch of other top players.

  17. Another great question. Marketing Director is not a traditional C-level position, and I know of at least four network marketing companies who use the title as a rank in the comp plan.

    Without a doubt it can be confusing.

  18. Great question. Since 1200 people could be classified as “co-founders” based on the Dallas launch event, I am really not sure how to look at the word founder or co-founder.

    As for investor. Just because a person invests in a company means they can talk on behalf of the company.

    Again, great question gives us more to ponder.

  19. AppShare was never part of the original Rippln concept presented in Dallas in April/2013. It was that Rippln would launch its own social network platform like Facebook where people could invite their friends, families and contacts with one difference. We would get paid for our social influence. Did that happen? No, they are still using Facebook to promote Rippln. Facebook didn’t use someone else’s platform when they launched. They went live and it grew from there.

    App Share was never introduced. They talk about developing apps to push through the ripple if members had ideas for apps and also to push goods and services that would benefit the members. Has that happen? No! They talk about how Rippln was not another MLM or the next big deal but a movement. What has it become? Just another MLM.

  20. Doesn’t he always say he (Jonathan Budd) is a co-founder of Rippln. Can you be a co-founder, investor and an affiliate? His title is Marketing director. Isn’t that an executive position?

  21. Hey G,

    They do have the watches, app revenues, and educational products sold through the marketplace.

    Now, I am not sure how much of that is being sold. Based on the public traffic numbers, I would say very little.

    Now as for people saying they are getting paid… Well I always take that for a grain of salt because I never know what to believe from some folks. Are they over-hyping the amount of income, or any income at all.

    I did expect to see more movement out of the chat app. After the first weekend, my app is pretty silent.

  22. I am not sure I fully understand your comment. JB has always been an affiliate in the field, as well as investing in the company. I do not think he had an official executive role.

  23. Well, did you hear the news? Jonathan Budd is now only a consultant of Rippln now. I was just told this yesterday by an insider of Rippln. If thats true, not a good sign for Rippln. One more added to the list of top people that have left and move on.

  24. No he (Mike Rutherford) is part of corporate in Rippln he has said it many times on his videos refers to Brian as his partner. When he attends hangouts to speak he goes as a corporate speaker.

  25. More than a week later and nothing has changed (for the better).

    The only objective gauge we have for Rippln’s social engagement is the “people talking about this” number on their official facebook page. It ticked up briefly with the launch of the chat app but is trending back down again. More calls are being missed and the ones they have had are no longer being recorded for later playback.

    Some affiliates were expecting the first round of paychecks for app share over the weekend. They’re being reminded that those payments aren’t due until next month but people are still being paid. Paid for What?

    They’re no longer selling TUG so that isn’t it. If they can find someone in the US willing to overpay for a smart watch that might be an income source I suppose. App share isn’t paying out yet so what else can someone do in Rippln to get paid?

    Oh yes, recruiting other paying members.

    What is it called when a company with a multilevel pay plan pays it’s members not from the sale of any retail product but rather for recruiting more paying members?

    More than half of the $30/month membership fees are paid out “to the ripple” from every “Pro” ranked player and above. I’ll be the first to admit that not all of Rippln is a pyramid scheme, just the vast majority of it and for this month at least the pyramid scheme is about the only part of it that is paying out.

    The problem is that this company is losing momentum, losing leaders and losing paying members. This means that the unfortunate few who are paying $294 to join have a close to zero chance of breaking even here. What’s worse, their best chance to break even is to recruit a lot more people to spend $294. Despite (or because of) this sad truth the sole focus of the few company calls that are taking place is on recruiting new paying members.

  26. Mike, is not a co-founder of the company. He is a top level rep in the company. And after reviewing his video, I did contact corporate and make it clear there were more than one area where the video was totally out of compliance.

    Not sure if it has been removed, but it should be!

    I do fully understand where you are coming from in reviewing it, and agree with you that it is a problem!

    And you are totally correct on the smiley!!!

    I can see your point on the FB issue. The only thing I would say on that is, we don’t know how much is hype to make it look like they are growing, and if they really are growing. But it is a valid point and causes one to ponder which facts are accurate.

    All valid points for sure!!!

  27. I am sure depending on how long a persona has been inactive they may be charged again. Or if they use a different email that the original they might be charged.

    Did these people you have heard from contact support at RippLn for clarification?

  28. Roberto,

    Can you provide documentation showing where credit cards were charged when they should not have been, or is this something you have just heard about?

    And, please explain in better detail exactly what you are referring, when you say “they ask you to pay again?” Are you referring to the $95, $199 or monthly $30?

    I did hear that there are 5 updates coming over the next month or so adding additional features.

    And, I think what makes the Chat App so attractive to folks, is that all of their friends are already using it. They don’t have to ask them to join something new, since they have already done that.

  29. No one is going to make any money on any app share. All they want is for people to power up for $95 plus AppShare for $199. And if you discontinue paying the monthly they ask you to pay again to reinstate the account. In many cases they continue to charge your credit card even after you cancel.

    The Chat app is no big deal that we can get for free and works much better. WeChat and Tango work much better and no fee of any kind. This just another MLM pretending to be a social network platform.

  30. The Chat app is no big deal or spacial at all. WeChat, Tango are free and they work much better for video messaging and walkie talkie. Below all of our expectations.

  31. I was under the understanding that power up to player fee was a one time fee. It was reported to me that people are being charged to pay another $95 power up fee if they want to re-instate their accounts. And also all the features in their back office have been removed. Thats not right. They are committing fraud and misrepresentation. I didn’t know that lifetime of membership is month to month.

  32. Ahem, “not a Rippln corporate video”? OK, so it’s only a company Co-Founder reading from a prepared script on a video disseminated through the company’s social media sites.

    But I think the little smiley face was meant to indicate that even you thought your “isn’t official” comment is something like a joke. If it wasn’t just say so, I can show you the same sales pitch on Rippln’s weekly calls.

    I follow a few of the larger downline groups on facebook and on their team sites and there are “welcome to the team” and “just powered up to share apps” posts fairly frequently. That does give the impression that app share upgrades are occurring because the only way to be grandfathered in is to have already been a paying team member prior to Oct. 31st.

    I’m not sure about the term “licensing fee” but what I do see is a commission being offered from the sale of something that no one outside of the comp plan would ever pay for. Not for individual inventory items which can be retailed for profit (think BigSmart).

    I don’t need to cite case law to you about how that gets viewed in court. Of course this would equally apply to Rippln’s “player engagement bonuses” but I understand you are taking your time in looking into that.

    There are some serious issues with this company completely outside of the comp plan but we can leave those for another post. If “player engagement bonuses” are being paid out in the way they are described in the document and videos I’ve shared with you then I fear that legitimate retail sales comprise only a small fraction of affiliate compensation. And if that is true then legality becomes almost secondary, it would mean that most affiliates need to lose money here so that some can make money here. Pretty sure we both care about that sort of thing.

  33. I responded to last night’s questions just a bit ago.

    Correct based on what I have been told, no one has paid $199.

    First the video is not a RippLn corporate video. I feel that is important because after reviewing it from start to finish there are several compliance issues with it. 🙂

    I think I understand your question. But in case I don’t please don’t get frustrated just realize I missed the mark.

    If you are referring to $199.00 for the right to market the apps inside the app share catalogs, then yes I see potential red flags from regulators.

    Several companies over the last few years have tried to create licensing fee payouts. I caution against it because in my eyes, as soon as you say “we pay $100 out of $199, then you are stating the fair market value is really $99, not $199.

    Now, if the $199 isn’t a licensing fee, but in reality a person really is buying an app catalog, and there is a specific unique identifier on each app that can be tracked back to the person marketing it, and the individually the cost of marketing those apps as a reseller is higher than $199 when grouped into a catalog, and applying the law of large numbers through a network marketing distribution channel, then I would not have an issue with the payout,

    But, based on the video in question, again as a regulator I would have issues with this part of the comp plan, and would be investigating.

  34. G,

    I have been specifically told that “post grandfather period” no one has paid $199 to be a part of app share.

    And in knowing some of the names of the early promoters who are now off doing other programs it is easy for me to accept that fact.

    I suspect that with the leaders focused elsewhere so are the majority of those who were looking to build the business.

    I fully understand your concern about the $199.00. If a regulator were to see it as a licensing fee, and a commission is paid on that licensing fee, it may create an issue. I hit My Shopping Genie for this same issue.

    I know there are talks on making some type of change because the $199 did not fly.

    However, the commissions being generated from the sharing, does seem to be working. Although not at the level desired.

    If I were a betting man, I would guess that a change of some kind will be announced soon.

  35. I think I wrote a reply late last night, not sure if it’s enqueued or if it got glitched but I’d just as soon not have it serve to remind me that sarcasm isn’t my best form of humor. Particularly when there are more important issues to address.

    NO ONE has paid the app share catalog upgrade fee? I do not believe that is true but it really isn’t an issue I’d care to debate, the compensation Rippln attached to the sale of the catalog is. I know you’ve heard the plan spelled out before (the 4:40 mark of the following link):

    Troy, simple direct question: “If” Rippln was to pay out commissions from the sale of app share catalogs, do you believe a regulatory agency would have a problem with that? And please explain your answer.

  36. If there is a misunderstanding here I’ll share my end of the blame.
    So NO ONE at all (post grandfather period) has been willing to pay
    Rippln the price it asks to join the App Share opportunity? Is that in
    fact what you have been told and what you are telling us? I’m just
    striving for clarity here.

    I wont comment on any of the directly contingent issues at this point, the whole “no one is willing to pay us what we ask for this” argument is quite frankly something I hadn’t anticipated. I don’t think it’s all that far from the
    truth but even if it is gospel it wouldn’t change the commission
    structure Rippln attached to the sale of an App Share catalog, if anyone
    ever did buy one (which I fear may have happened).

  37. G, seriously? I was very clear in this video, I not only respect ALL of you, but that I was still digging for answers to some of your questions!

    I did state that ALL of US, not, just you, Oz, Patrick or any other valid critic use subjective reasoning at times as we weed through information, or better yet lack of info at times.

    The greatest of all critics do the same thing until facts are presented that help clarify a direction one is heading. Short of mathematical equations, at times it is all we have. When new facts or corrected fact are presented where subjective reasoning has been used, most critics I know quickly correct the direction and present the validated evidence.

    And, I also made it clear, that the info I get from owners and officers had NOT always been the truth!

    But, at least I am going to one of the main sources for info! And because I do go to the source at the top for the info, when the info proves not to be the true facts, then I at least have a viable source for regulators, critics or the general public to study and determine what else they might have lied about.

    Now to answer your question on “why the pricing is still listed” because it is still in the system as $199. But no one is upgrading after the Grandfathering grace period was over. Which based on info I have read in your community, Behind MLM and other places make sense. If the majority of people have disengaged, then there is a good probability that the majority of those joining are “fans” free members kicking the tires and trying out apps to see if they like what they see.

    I did not say they had removed the $199 from the program. I just stated NO ONE was biting! And then I explained why!

    You raise some great questions in my mind… What would happen if hey removed the barrier of entry from $199 to free?

    1. Would this create a massive influx of users in countries where the apps can’t be used?

    2. Would it crash some of the apps which in turn would cause more frustration with RippLn and the app providers?

    3. Would more App developers in other countries decide to play in the Ripple?

    I don’t know the answers, but I think I will ask the questions.

    Now let’s clear up something. I did not state the $199 was not being charged! I stated, NO ONE had upgrades after the grace period was lifted. Big difference in what I said and what you seemed to think I said. If i misunderstood what you are saying please forgive me.

    G, great idea on them coming here to discus the questions raised. However, a live discussion I think would have far greater impact. Plus we would know it was really them answering the questions!

    But I will sure ask.

  38. Thank you for sharing the BIG PICTURE of both sides of the story! So many times we hear one or the other and usually the facts meet someplace in the middle, but YOUR broadcast update about RIPPLN is right on…Thanks for ALL that YOU do!

  39. Troy, how many times have you accused me, Oz, Patrick or any of the others of “subjective reasoning,” yet after spending time on the phone sharing visions with a business owner you assume you are getting the complete unvarnished truth?

    If Brian told you that no one was paying $199 for the app share catalog why is the price listed on every piece of literature, why is it mentioned on every recruiting call? Yes, if someone was a paying member prior to Oct. 31st they don’t pay that fee but if they joined after that and want to make money off of anything other than selling Rippln memberships, they do pay the catalog fee.

    Believe me enough people inside the company are complaining about it that Rippln could score points with their potential affiliates by making a public announcement that the app share catalog fee is no more. Yet your video is the only one indicating that the catalog fees is not being charged. Please investigate this further.

    You seemed to invite the critics to get in touch with the principles at Rippln, even seemed to imply you’d help set that up. How about this, invite Brian, Jonathan, Micheal or the rest to come here and answer some of these questions. They don’t allow participation on their weekly calls and they edit negative feedback on their facebook page and a lot of their affiliates throwing up their hands in frustration and leaving the company because no one is holding this companies leadership accountable for their actions.

    No one.

    No one at all.

    I thank you in advance for getting back to me with the information I asked you for. But until you have that info, isn’t it too soon to dispense with the P word?

Leave a Comment