Part of the guide: Network Marketing Lead Generation
FHTM or Fortune High Tech Marketing was a networking company that I had considered when looking I was searching for a network marketing or multi level marketing company. Sometimes we start looking for reasons why we joined a particular company after we already joined. If you have already spent the money to become an FHTM rep I think you’ll be happy. If you haven’t joined my hope is to give you unbiased information that you can use to conduct your research.
I am not a Fortune rep nor have I ever been a fortune rep but I have been recruited by one their top money earners to do so.
FHTM: The company
Fortune Hi Tech Marketing was founded in 2001 by Paul Orberson. Mr. Orberson is the son of a Southern Baptist Preacher. Although not born with a silver spoon in his mouth he did grow up in an environment that gave him a solid foothold and a Christian foundation or morals and integrity.
Orberson started his adult career as a high school football coach, after graduating college. As any high school football coach knows there isn’t a massive salary that goes along with that position. As any husband and parent is aware when kids come into the picture life will never be the same and monthly bills and obligations escalate along with regular parental duties.
Orberson became a rep in an mlm company called Excel. The now defunct company sold phone residential phone services. Paul did well so well that he eventually gave up his football coaching gig and was bringing in residual checks of well over a million dollars a month.
Does Orberson know how to build a networking company? I’m sure he does.
FHTM: The Products
Fortune markets entertainment services like satellite television, cell phone services, online shopping malls, health and beauty products, identity theft services and more.
Although, Fortune’s product offerings aren’t all that unique they do have staying power and those industries won’t be going out of business anytime soon. Fortune pays an on going commission of 2-20% on their products. If you bring in a new distributor who pays the $299 fee, you will make a $100 bonus for getting them into the business.
You don’t have to pay anything just to become a customer of FHTM.
FHTM: Recruiting system
Fortune trainers are big money earners are very good at closing prospects that they can get in front of. If you are a new distributor, unless you have a massive base of friends and family or a network who you have a lot of credibility with, you will have a hard time even earning your money back.
You will be trained to make a list of your family, friends and make a list of people who you would never think about approaching. This list would include people in occupations like your dentist, your doctor, your house cleaner, etc. But what happens when you run out of people to talk to? You are dead in the water and will discard your dream of financial freedom. Is the old school way of recruiting dead?
It really depends on your personality. But for the most part I don’t feel that the traditional recruiting system is easy to duplicate. That’s my feeling.
To have real success in any networking company you will need a steady stream of new prospects contacting you. But how do you do that and how much does it cost to do it? Those are great questions.
Look around the site at WorkingWithDavidWood.com and you will find a tremendous amount of resources that won’t cost a thing to do to start generating leads.
How many MLM leaders can consistently bring in 1-2 reps or more per day with their lead system. My guess is there are very few if any in FHTM or Fortune High Tech Marketing. Do I think that they are a good solid company to work with? Absolutely
You have been paid late before
You have watched the number on the dashboard not match the number in your account. What is different now is simple: it settles on a public contract you can check yourself, not a dashboard I control.
Read the contract →Most participants earn little to nothing. No income is guaranteed. You can verify every payout on the public smart contract.
Here’s To Your Crazy Success
Awesomeness isn’t a state of mind it’s a state of being
-Rochelle Nicodemus–
Comments
Skapegoat1, August 28, 2011, 15:45
Paul Orberson and Thomas Mills banned from MLM by the FTC.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144134467/Paul-Orberson-and-Tom-Mills-Banned-From-MLM-permanently
Read the stipulated agreement here:
http://www.joseph-isaacs.com/courtcases/Stipulated%20Preliminary%20Injunction%2005.24.13.pdf
Isaacs1, August 28, 2011, 16:30
The FTC and 3 AG’s filed a lawsuit in Federal court on January 24, 2013. A few days later state police and the FTC raided FHTM headquarters. They were shut down and all assets seized by a receiver. Maybe sometime in 2013 the millions of victims will get restitution and retribution for the FHTM evil ways.
TyronneRatcliff, August 28, 2011, 17:15
Too bad FHTM had to close their doors, sad day for them and the industry of network marketing.
Fhtmfacts, August 28, 2011, 18:00
Well, now it’s all done but for the cryin’!! The FTC and the Kentucky Attorney General’s office raided FHTM’s offices and warehouse on 28 January 2013 and all their assets are frozen. No more paychecks, no more recruiting and no more sales. The reps need to cancel all affiliated actions.
Three posts a day. One email a day.
Everything I publish, in one short daily email. Real numbers, no hype, unsubscribe in one click.
Get paid 100%, on-chain, the second the sale clears
Most affiliates earn little, and that is disclosed up front. The difference here is not a promise about what you will make. It is that you can verify every payout yourself, on a public contract, in about twelve seconds.
See how the payout works →Most participants earn little to nothing. No income is guaranteed. You can verify every payout on the public smart contract.
Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else, but how does someone decide FHTM is ‘a good solid company to work with’ in the very same post where they just spent six paragraphs explaining why the recruiting model doesn’t work for most people? Those feel like two different conclusions.
Bonnie, you’ve spotted the exact tension that used to drive me mad in twenty-two years of corporate reviews — the summary slide always contradicted the risk register three slides earlier, because someone senior needed the deck to end on ‘proceed.’ Same shape here. Six paragraphs of genuine risk analysis — the bit about running out of family, friends and eventually your own dentist to prospect, which is a churn problem no amount of positive framing survives — then a closing ‘absolutely’ the preceding paragraphs don’t actually support. I sat through enough of these reviews to recognise the tell: when the conclusion needs its own sentence, separate from the analysis that came before it, that’s usually the moment someone senior overruled whoever wrote the honest middle of the deck. I’d trust the risk register over the summary slide every time, and I’d trust six honest paragraphs over one confident word bolted on at the end.
Graham’s corporate-slide comparison got me thinking about the bike shop version of this — I’ll tell a customer honestly that a cheaper frame will do everything they need, then still recommend the shop’s house brand at the end because loyalty to my own shelf matters too. Doesn’t make either half a lie. Just means the reader has to know which half they’re getting.
Graham, is this contradiction specific to English-language blogs, where the writer must stay friendly with the industry while still being honest?
Graham’s slide analogy names something real — close to what’s called motivated reasoning under audience pressure in the literature. The author needs credibility with skeptical readers, hence the honest six paragraphs, and goodwill with the industry he still operates in, hence the closing endorsement. Both audiences get served by the same piece, which is exactly why the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the argument.
If recruiting is this hard, why the confident ‘absolutely’ at the end?
Ivy, I think what’s being missed is that the ‘absolutely’ answers a narrower question than the one the rest of the post raises. He’s not saying recruiting is easy. He’s saying the company, the products, the structure, held up under his own research. Those are two separate claims bundled into one closing line, and I agree it would have been clearer kept apart.