Landmark Worldwide

Landmark Worldwide (known as Landmark Education before 2013), or simply Landmark, is an American employee-owned for-profit company that offers personal-development programs, with their most-known being the Landmark Forum.

As part of the Human Potential Movement, which was centered in San Francisco, Werner Erhard created and ran the est (Erhard Seminars Training) system from 1971 to 1984, which promoted the idea that individuals are empowered when they take personal responsibility for all events in their lives, both good and bad. In 1985, Erhard modified est to be gentler and more business oriented and renamed it the Landmark Forum. In 1991, he sold the company and its concepts to some of his employees, who incorporated it as Landmark Education Corporation, which was restructured into Landmark Education LLC in 2003, and then renamed Landmark Worldwide LLC in 2013. Its subsidiary, the Vanto Group, markets and delivers training and consulting to organizations.

History
In 1985, Werner Erhard (creator of the est training which ran from 1971 to 1984) renamed est to the Landmark Forum, and changed the content to be gentler and somewhat more business oriented. He promoted the idea that all events (good and bad) of an individual's life were their own making, and that individuals would be empowered when they take personal responsibility for all events in their lives, an idea based in the Human Potential Movement. Many individuals liked this belief, whether or not it is true, or simply works as a placebo. The Landmark Forum's niche was for people who did not have major psychological problems, but were nonetheless seeking self-improvement; these people constituted a very large part of society and were not served by the medical psychological establishment, which concentrated on those with mental illness.

In 1991, Erhard sold the intellectual property rights associated with the Forum's concepts to some of his employees, (including his brother Harry Rosenberg who became CEO) who incorporated into "Landmark Education Corporation." Landmark paid Erhard $3 million as an initial licensing fee, with additional payments over the next 18 years not to exceed $15 million. The new company offered similar courses and employed many of the same staff. The Forum was reduced in length from four days to three, and its price is about 50% of the cost of the est courses. In 2001, Rosenberg stated that Landmark had completely purchased the licenses to all of Erhard's concepts and all divisions of the company.

In 2003, Landmark Education Corporation was re-structured into Landmark Education LLC, and in 2013 it was renamed Landmark Worldwide LLC. Landmark Worldwide states that it operates as a for-profit company, whose employees own all the stock of the corporation. The company states that it invests its surpluses "into making its programs, initiatives, and services more widely available."

The company reported in 2019 that more than 2.4 million people had participated in its programs since 1991. Landmark holds seminars in approximately 125 locations in more than 21 countries. Landmark's revenue surpassed $100 million in 2018, with profits of about $5 million. The organization has 500 employees, and about 7,500 volunteers, an unusually large number of volunteers for a for-profit company. Their use of volunteers prompted three separate investigations by the United States Department of Labor, which concluded without requiring Landmark to make any changes to their practices.

Landmark does not use advertising to reach potential customers, but rather pressures participants during their courses to recruit relatives, friends, and acquaintances as new clients.

Business consulting
In 1993 Landmark started a subsidiary named Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD), (later renamed to the Vanto Group) which uses the Landmark methodology to provide consulting services to businesses and other organizations. LEBD became the Vanto Group in 2008.

Controversial marketing practices
Landmark does not advertise but instead relies wholly on word-of-mouth to market its programs. This has been a somewhat controversial point over the history of the organization. In the course of The Forum and other Landmark programs, participants are repeatedly urged to invite friends and family members as guests and invite them to sign up for the Forum. There are past participants who have voiced concerns about this practice being a high-pressure sales technique.

Accusations of being a cult
Landmark has faced accusations of being a cult. Several commentators unrelated to Landmark have stated that because it has no single central leader, is a secular (non-religious) organization, and it tries to unite (and re-unite) participants with their family and friends (rather than isolate them) that it does not meet many of the characteristics of a cult.

Landmark has threatened and pursued lawsuits against people who have called or labeled it such, including individuals (clinical psychology professor Margaret Singer), magazines (Elle, Self, and Now,) and organizations (Cult Awareness Network). After Singer wrote a book, Cults in Our Midst, in which she mentioned Landmark as a controversial New Age training course, Landmark sued Singer. The suit was resolved when Singer agreed to provide a sworn statement that Landmark is not a cult or sect. Singer stated that she would not recommend the group to anyone, and would not comment on whether Landmark used coercive persuasion for fear of legal recrimination from Landmark. In 1997, Landmark sued Cult Awareness Network (CAN) after they made statements alleging or implying that Landmark was a cult. That suit was resolved when CAN stated that it has no evidence that Landmark is a cult.

In June 2004, Landmark filed a 1 million dollar lawsuit against Rick Alan Ross's Cult Education Institute, alleging that postings on the institute's websites which characterized Landmark as a cultish organization that brainwashed their clients damaged Landmark's product. In December 2005, Landmark filed to dismiss its own lawsuit with prejudice, purportedly on the grounds of a material change in case law after the publication of an opinion in another case, Donato v. Moldow, regarding the Communications Decency Act of 1996, even though Ross wanted to continue the case in order to further investigate Landmark's educational materials and history of suing critics. Ross stated that he does not see Landmark as a cult because they have no individual leader, but he considers them harmful because subjects are harassed and intimidated, causing potentially unsafe levels of stress.

Courses
Many large companies and government agencies have paid for and encouraged their employees to take Landmark's classes.

Andrew Cherng, the founder and co-CEO of Panda Express, has said that Landmark aided his company's success. He has strongly encouraged his employees and all managers to take Landmark's classes. Chip Wilson, the founder of Lululemon Athletica, is a follower of Landmark's principles, and has directed his companies to pay for employees to attend Landmark's classes.

Some of Landmark's courses require participants to start a community project.

Landmark Forum
Landmark's entry course, the Landmark Forum, is the default first course for new participants and provides the foundation of all Landmark's other programs. The Landmark Forum takes place over three consecutive days plus an evening session (generally Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday evening.) The Forum is attended in a group varying in size between 75 and 250 people. Landmark arranges the course as a dialogue in which the Forum leader presents a series of proposals and encourages participants to take the floor to relate how those ideas apply to their own individual lives. Course leaders set up rules at the beginning of the program and Landmark strongly encourages participants not to miss any part of the program. Attendees are also urged to be "coachable" (open minded to the course's concepts) and not just be observers during the course.

Various ideas are proposed for consideration and explored during the course. These include:


 * There can be a big difference between the facts and events in a person's life and the meaning, interpretation, and significance the person gives to or makes up about those events.
 * A person's behavior is often governed by a perceived need to look good and be right, and people are often unaware of how their behaviours are shaped by these needs.
 * When people have persistent complaints that are accompanied by unproductive fixed ways of being and acting,

During the course, participants are encouraged to call friends and family members with whom they feel they have unresolved tensions, and to take responsibility for their own behavior.

The evening session follows closely on the three consecutive days of the course and completes the Landmark Forum. During this final session, the participants share information about their results and bring guests to learn about the Forum.

A 2011 Time article stated that "Landmark has been criticized for delving into the traumas of largely unscreened participants without having mental-health professionals on hand."

Scholars
Sociologist Eileen Barker and sociologist of religion James A. Beckford both classified Landmark and its predecessor organization est as a "new religious movement" (NRM). Some scholars have categorized Landmark or its predecessor organizations as a "self religion" or a (broadly defined) new religious movement (NRM). Others question some aspects of these characterizations.

Renee Lockwood, a sociology of religion researcher at The University of Sydney described Landmark as a "corporate religion" and a "religio-spiritual corporation" because of its emphasis on teaching techniques for improvement in personal and employee productivity, which is marketed to businesses as well as government agencies. Sociologist of religion Thomas Robbins says that Landmark could be considered an NRM. George Chryssides, a researcher on NRMs and cults said: "est and Landmark may have some of the attributes typically associated with religion, but it is doubtful whether they should be accorded full status as religious organizations."

Stephen A. Kent, professor of Sociology and an expert in new religious movements, stated in 2014 that Landmark's business is "to teach people that the values they have held up until now have held them back; that indeed they need a new set of values and this group [Landmark] can provide those new sets of values ... I don't know of any academic research that verifies that kind of perspective" and while some individuals feel "cleansed" or "invigorated" by Landmark's training, others may feel violated by the pressure put on them to reveal their innermost secrets to strangers during Landmark's training sessions.

Landmark maintains that it is an educational foundation and denies being a religious movement.

Large Group Awareness Training study
In 1985, a group of psychology researchers studied participants of the Forum, (a Large Group Awareness Training course) and compared their outcomes to a control group of non attendees. They published their results in the book Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training. They found that participants had a short-term increase in internal locus of control (the belief that one can control their life), but found no long-term positive or negative effects on individuals' self-perception.

Reporters
In his review of the Landmark Forum, New York Times humorist Henry Alford wrote that he "resented the pressure" placed on him during a session, but sardonically noted that "two months after the Forum, I'd rate my success at 84 percent." Time reporter Nathan Thornburgh, in his review of The Landmark Forum, said "At its heart, the course was a withering series of scripted reality checks meant to show us how we have created nearly everything we see as a problem" and "I benefited tremendously from the uncomfortable mirror the course had put in front of me."

Amber Allinson, writing in The Mayfair Magazine describes Landmark's instructors as "enthusiastic and inspiring". Her review says that after doing The Landmark Forum, "Work worries, relationship dramas all seem more manageable", and that she "let go of almost three decades of hurt, anger and feelings of betrayal" towards her father.

Journalist Amelia Hill with The Observer witnessed a Landmark Forum and concluded that, in her view, it is not religious or a cult. Hill wrote, "It is ... simple common sense delivered in an environment of startling intensity."

Reporter Laura McClure with Mother Jones attended a three and a half-day forum, which she described as "My lost weekend with the trademark happy, bathroom-break hating, slightly spooky inheritors of est." Heidi Beedle, writing for the Colorado Springs Independent in 2019 said that "The tangible benefits of Landmark's courses may seem hard to pin down" though community projects do seem to be one, and "One thing is certain: Landmark is a program that is incredibly successful at making people feel good about Landmark."

France 3 documentary
In 2004, the French channel France 3 aired a television documentary on Landmark in their investigative series Pièces à Conviction. The episode, called "Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous" ("Journey to the land of the new gurus") was highly critical of its subject. Shot in large part with a hidden camera, it showed attendance at a Landmark course and a visit to Landmark offices. In addition, the program included interviews with former course participants, anti-cultists, and commentators. Landmark left France following the airing of the episode and a subsequent site visit by labor inspectors that noted the activities of volunteers, and sued Jean-Pierre Brard in 2004 following his appearance in the documentary.

The episode was uploaded to a variety of websites, and in October 2006 Landmark issued subpoenas pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to Google Video, YouTube, and the Internet Archive demanding details of the identity of the person(s) who had uploaded those copies. These organizations challenged the subpoenas and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) became involved, planning to file a motion to quash Landmark's DMCA subpoena to Google Video. Landmark eventually withdrew its subpoenas.