Charles Scoville CEO
If anyone was at meetings where I spoke (either on camera remotely or in person) I explained that Traffic Monsoon built giving into the business model. It was my belief that a company that shares the profits by building "giving" into the business model would become a lot more successful. The more Traffic Monsoon grew, the more I pointed to the growth of the business. Sharing profits definitely makes people who work building a company more productive. By sharing profits with customers who click ads, the company reached achievements few companies achieve. As the company continues to sell services, there continues to be a profit margin. As customers work together to continue using and selling the services offered on Traffic Monsoon there will be sales. By clicking through ads and viewing people's websites, the customer can receive some money from sales profits 24 hours or more ago. The company grew. The customer base grew. Sales revenues grew. PayPal said the company grew so fast in such a short amount of time they had to part ways. My belief that building giving into the business model would help the company grow turned out to be right. Now the SEC says that giving money to customers who click ads is wrong. Giving customers money from incoming sales from both new and existing customers when these customers click on ads couldn't possibly be illegal... is it? The State of Utah Securities Division reviewed this business model under AdHitProfits and closed their file because no security was involved. Now the SEC is saying there is a security involved, and labels customers as investors in order to claim that early "investors" are paid from later "investors" -- When the truth in all reality is: People who setup an ad campaign, then paid for service are customers not investors. They selected an advertising service, paid for it, and agreed that their purchase is not an investment, deposit, or security. They agreed they are not owed any money back for their purchase. Terms of conditions and agreement to them by the user becomes a contract. The contract clearly indicates that a purchase of ad service with Traffic Monsoon is not an investment, and there is no liability placed upon Traffic Monsoon to pay the customer anything back. There is a cap placed for what a customer can receive by surfing ads, but there has never been any sort of guarantee or promise that the customer would receive anything more for their purchase other than the service they have paid for, and be enabled for qualifying to receive a portion of incoming sales revenues up to a capped amount, but never guaranteed any amount. The company simply has chosen to "give" some of its profit margins to customers who are surfing ads in the traffic exchange. This is not a security. This is not an investment. This is simply rewarding customers for clicking ads, and a way to build giving into the business model to increase productivity. It definitely increased productivity. It had been working. Working so well that powers that be which have their own agendas interfered. Their interference interrupted the ability to pay people while PayPal held onto money. Their holding onto money interrupted my ability to use the allocated funds for the purpose of buying ad services through external websites. People weren't able to get paid what they had earned, and people couldn't receive the services as quickly as they had wanted. Delivery was still in progress but slower than desired. We all were waiting for PayPal's release of funds so everyone could get paid what they earned, and advertising services paid for could get delivered faster. Now the SEC has twisted this business model and stuffed it into a box and marked the box ponzi. It's my firm belief that customers are not investors. Customers purchased ad service, and if they purchase an adpack they are enabled to be paid for the service they provide to Traffic Monsoon: delivering traffic.
Read Hillary Clintons idea in the article via this link
http://time.com/3961204/hillary-clinton-corporate-profit-sharing/
If anyone was at meetings where I spoke (either on camera remotely or in person) I explained that Traffic Monsoon built giving into the business model. It was my belief that a company that shares the profits by building "giving" into the business model would become a lot more successful. The more Traffic Monsoon grew, the more I pointed to the growth of the business. Sharing profits definitely makes people who work building a company more productive. By sharing profits with customers who click ads, the company reached achievements few companies achieve. As the company continues to sell services, there continues to be a profit margin. As customers work together to continue using and selling the services offered on Traffic Monsoon there will be sales. By clicking through ads and viewing people's websites, the customer can receive some money from sales profits 24 hours or more ago. The company grew. The customer base grew. Sales revenues grew. PayPal said the company grew so fast in such a short amount of time they had to part ways. My belief that building giving into the business model would help the company grow turned out to be right. Now the SEC says that giving money to customers who click ads is wrong. Giving customers money from incoming sales from both new and existing customers when these customers click on ads couldn't possibly be illegal... is it? The State of Utah Securities Division reviewed this business model under AdHitProfits and closed their file because no security was involved. Now the SEC is saying there is a security involved, and labels customers as investors in order to claim that early "investors" are paid from later "investors" -- When the truth in all reality is: People who setup an ad campaign, then paid for service are customers not investors. They selected an advertising service, paid for it, and agreed that their purchase is not an investment, deposit, or security. They agreed they are not owed any money back for their purchase. Terms of conditions and agreement to them by the user becomes a contract. The contract clearly indicates that a purchase of ad service with Traffic Monsoon is not an investment, and there is no liability placed upon Traffic Monsoon to pay the customer anything back. There is a cap placed for what a customer can receive by surfing ads, but there has never been any sort of guarantee or promise that the customer would receive anything more for their purchase other than the service they have paid for, and be enabled for qualifying to receive a portion of incoming sales revenues up to a capped amount, but never guaranteed any amount. The company simply has chosen to "give" some of its profit margins to customers who are surfing ads in the traffic exchange. This is not a security. This is not an investment. This is simply rewarding customers for clicking ads, and a way to build giving into the business model to increase productivity. It definitely increased productivity. It had been working. Working so well that powers that be which have their own agendas interfered. Their interference interrupted the ability to pay people while PayPal held onto money. Their holding onto money interrupted my ability to use the allocated funds for the purpose of buying ad services through external websites. People weren't able to get paid what they had earned, and people couldn't receive the services as quickly as they had wanted. Delivery was still in progress but slower than desired. We all were waiting for PayPal's release of funds so everyone could get paid what they earned, and advertising services paid for could get delivered faster. Now the SEC has twisted this business model and stuffed it into a box and marked the box ponzi. It's my firm belief that customers are not investors. Customers purchased ad service, and if they purchase an adpack they are enabled to be paid for the service they provide to Traffic Monsoon: delivering traffic.
Read Hillary Clintons idea in the article via this link
http://time.com/3961204/hillary-clinton-corporate-profit-sharing/