So ml-who-used-to-be-a-coach, as an ml,
Quote facts and figures, don't spin like a politician.
So ml-who-used-to-be-a-coach, as an ml,
Quote facts and figures, don't spin like a politician.
So ml-who-used-to-be-a-coach, as an ml,
Firstly, I never said in the post I was an ML :-) I was a coach.
You said "money speaks" as if you have never tried to make a sale. Its business, and making money is the name of the game.
Yup, that is exactly the attitude I was refering to, Brad would be proud of you, sell and make money, if people don't make it too bad, screw them. You are doing a fine job of confirming what others said here without any help, keep it up.
Brad Sugars, the Marketing Team(Lead by Jodie Shaw) and the ML Team are fond of blaming coaches for not playing above the line and not doing what it takes to be successful.
In actual fact, anyone of them, with a bit of experience and especially those who became MLs after being a coach would be able to tell at the point of selection whether a prospect is going to make it as a coach. They will be LYING if they said they don't. So the question is: why do they still take them in?
They should stop living in denial about their own greed and stop using jargons and rhetorics to justify greed.
If they are reading this, they will know what I am talking about. Stop taking people in, take their money and justify them dropping out after you've taken all their money. Action's team selection process works, I know because when I was a coach, I taught that to my clients. It was the same system that we use for our own recruitment. The only explanation for it not to work for Action is greed.
Furthermore, we always teach clients the 'stink starts from the top', fix the business owner and the business fix itself... when it comes to practise however, whithin Action, the fault always lies with coaches no matter how high the turnover is. That is what we call inconsistent and not practising what is preached.
Do I tell the truth to prospects? Of course I do.... Most of the people who fail come into the business excited, then when it comes time generate leads, market yourself and sell, they don't follow the systems. You of all people should know that it's not easy being a coach.
Really? So you told everyone "it's not easy being a coach" as you mentioned above? You tell them about the lead generation process and the amount of activity required to get there? If you do, congratulations, you sure are a rare ML in Action and deserve your success. In the territory where I was a coach, I was told the 'market is ready', the 'coaches before you laid great foundation and the market is about to explode', 'getting appointments is a piece of cake'... you get the drift.
Interesting that some if not most of the 'nuts who stalked Brad Sugars' mostly win their cases of misrepresentation or settle out of court.
So earlier you said coaches who fail are losers who don't follow the system, now they are nuts. At the same time, you admit 14 out of 16 in your batch fail but you cannot see any misrepresentation or overselling, you see them all as losers which in other words, the stink of the organization didn't start from the top unlike what you coach clients to take ownership. And after admitting that 14 out of 16 are gone, your previous post spin Action as 'growing'.
Gee....
As another successful ML of ActionCoach, I am disgusted by the negative bitching I see here and on unhappyfranchisees.com, let me address some of the issues raised:
MLs are allowed to coach clients and to sign on coaching clients. That is in the agreement. Those that bitch about their MLs stealing clients from them should ask themselves why their own friends choose others over them instead of complaining. We are also allowed and encouraged to work on our own unique positioning, so there's absolutely nothing wrong with an ML telling a prospect "I only coach 5 clients per year and I can only reserve a slot for you if you are serious." Coaches should get a life or leave Action if they do not agree with this. They signed an agreement!
As the above ML noted, we are supposed to sell Coach Licenses for a profit; I don't know what the coaches here are bitching about. Are we supposed to run charities while coaches make profit? Get real, business is about profit! If you choose not to do what it takes, don't blame the ML for misleading you. It is your choice. I sell according to the system and the marketing materials provided to me. The statistics are provided by HQ and I have no reason to doubt their authenticity as I have met Brad, Jodie and the rest; the team is awesome. It is sad a few losers are making so much fuss out of it.
As for MLs having businesses with certain coaches within their territory, there's no clause in ML or Coach Agreement which says they are not allowed to do that. Those who bitch that an ML will be less partial just because they have business arrangements are simply jealous that they are not given the opportunity to be part of the alliance. Instead of making allegations, they should instead reflect on themselves why they are not included... could it be that they are not good enough to be included?
Coaches are given 12 weeks academy and all kind of support by HQ and they have their Coaches' Coach yet everyone here point their fingers at their MLs as though MLs are the source of their misery.
It is sad that, as the ML above noted, a few sore losers are trying their best to destroy the good name of Brad Sugars and ActionCoach simply because they were not good enough; and they run MLs who are doing well down as though we are not entitled to do well and make money just because they didn’t make the grade!
Dear All,
I posted earlier as another successful ML.
Iwould like to apologize for my earlier emotional rantings, I have since seen the errors of my views and would like to retract my statements:
1. As MLs, we help and support our coaches in getting clients. It is highly unethical for us to attempt to approach our coaches' prospect list, especially new coaches who depend on us to learn the ropes. I have personally not done so before but I know my fellow MLs are frustrated by all the accusations against them for what we see as a fair business practise.
2. MLs are supposed to sell licenses for a profit, that part is true as in any business. However, our roles are to tell the truth at all times and ensure potential franchisees make an informed decision. Subsequently upon them signing an agreement, they become our 'babies' to nurture and support until they become successful. I apologize if I gave the wrong perception. MLs are not mercenaries.
3. While our agreements do not bar us from having business alliances with our coaches, I now realize it is very unethical for us to have alliance with coaches in the coaching business as we not only need to act fair but need to be seen to be fair. I will now stop practising joint promotions with coaches unless I can include all coaches in my territory. I also realize it is against our franchise agreement to set up a 3rd party company with coaches to act as a collection firm.
4. While HQ provide the 12 weeks academy and a lot of support material, coaches' primary point of contact and support is their ML. I am sorry if I sound like I was trying to avoid my responsibility as an ML to my coaches.
I hope coaches who are here and on other forums to consider giving us your feedback directly instead of posting on external forums.
We promise we will listen and act on your feedback from now on.
Thank you.
Well 'another-successful-ML',
I am not as positive as poster above.
Firstly, you seem to backtrack completely on what you wrote barely 48 hours after writing it, seem more like you were under some sort of pressure to retract.
Secondly, you claimed you do not do any of the things mentioned and were only ranting out emotionally because of what you read. Sure doesn't sound like that in the first post, perhaps others can comment. Interestingly for example, in your first point you mentioned "we see as fair business practise".
Undoubtedly, the sale of any franchise usually means that the prospective purchaser has many questions about the businesses viability. This usually includes performing Due Diligence by the buyer and seeking documentation and assurances about the franchise opportunity they are considering. The danger is that the franchise seller will try to seal the deal by making assertions related to the business and its potential earnings. This often results in franchise seller overstating earnings potential. This is not allowed by franchise regulatory law and is often the basis for franchise litigation claims.
The danger is great since the UFOC Guidelines do not clearly define what an earnings statement may be. Even the most innocuous statements may be considered an earning claim for which a franchisor may be subjected to liability. Even the following:
Because of this potential liability, it is important that in selling a franchise, the franchisor and its agents should avoid advertisements, promotional literature or statements that are communicated to potential buyers regarding the earning potential of the new franchise.
If earnings statements are made, they must be based on a supported earnings claim. In other words, the representations must have a reasonable basis in fact. That may mean providing documentation in the form of average gross sales for the existing locations in the system and/or profit and loss statements. Any financial statements provided to a prospective franchise buyer should be include with supporting documentation in the Uniform Franchise Offering Circular (UFOC).
Any earnings statement must be based on other similarly situated franchise units. They must be reasonably similar with regard to the size and nature of the store being sold. The earnings statement must also reflect the current financial production. In other words the documentation should be based on production in a proximate time period and not based on production that predate the proposed purchase by a number of years.
This is just another scare tactic (speaking of which, I wonder what happened to unhappyfranchisee.com's threads?).
It is not easy to prove a case, just for discussion:
1. Someone on cox comm's network could be hosting a vpn service, which means the actual Ip could be anyone from anywhere :-)
2. Poster could be using a proxy on cox comm's network.
3. Poster could be on dynamic IP.
plus a whole lot of other possibilities...