Talk:Mary Kay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary Kay article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Archived Talk Page

Thanks for archiving the talk page. Hopefully future dialog won't be lost.67.136.137.119 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Company

[edit] Section renamed

I renamed the section to attempt to conform more closelt to WP:NPOV.Amber luxor 17:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Kay Qua Pyramid Scheme

I do not like the current wording of the sub-section "Mary Kay Qua Pyramid Scheme". For starters,it consists of too many direct quotes. Either dicuss it here,or rewrite it paragraph by paragraph.67.136.137.119 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pyramid scheme: "a fraudulent scheme in which people are recruited to make payments to the person who recruited them while expecting to receive payments from the persons they recruit; when the number of new recruits fails to sustain the hierarchical payment structure the scheme collapses with most of the participants losing the money they put in"[1]

Because new consultants pay Mary Kay corporate rather than the recruiter, and the recruiter is paid commissions through Corporate as well, Mary Kay does not resemble a pyramid scheme. However, if the one would like to still make the argument, evidence is needed directly tying the scheme to this company. The entire section must be rewritten. The previous section was vague, largely irrelevant to Mary Kay, and inappropriate. 70.122.53.194 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

a) Quoting an earlier talk discussion: "In Re Kescott (86 F.T.C. 1106) essentially ruled that all MLMs were pyramid schemes. In Re Amway (93 F.T.C. 618) essentially said that if an MLM met specific criteria, it was not a pyramid scheme. Those criteria have become known as "The Amway Safe Harbor Defence", and, as such, are case law."Amber luxor 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

b) Mary Kay does not meet any of the criteria outlined by "in Re Amway" that can be used to demonstrate that it (Mary Kay) is not a pyramid scheme. Amber luxor 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

c) In a pyramid scheme consideration can be transferred either directly from recruit to upline, or indirectly, from recruit to corporate to upline. Mary Kay commissions are based upon wholesale purchases, and as such, are indirect payments to the upline from the consultant. This is how Mary Kay resembles a product based pyramid scheme.Amber luxor 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

d) The nature of Mary Kay requires consultants to recruit, if they wish to advance in the organization. There is no advancement for retail sales, regardless of the amount of product that is sold. [ Recognition at Queens Court of Sales is merely recognition of the people who have purchased the most product at wholesale. Actual retail sales are irrelevant for that recognition.] This is yet another way of how Mary Kay resembles a product based pyramid scheme.Amber luxor 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

e) The section "Mary Kay Qua Pyramid Scheme" needs editing/rewriting, not deletion.Amber luxor 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woolf v Mary Kay Cosmetics needs clarification

I've read the section Woolf v Mary Kay Cosmetics, but I didn't find it clear. Admittedly, this is due to my lack of a law degree. Things I think would help the section:

  • When was the original case brought before the courts and/or when did the Dallas County court pass judgment?
  • When was it appealed by Mary Kay, to whom was it appealed, and when was that judgment passed?
  • What does "The Supreme Court USA ruled Certiorari Denied 31 May 2005" mean?

Thanks! — gogobera (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This case is borderline for meeting the current Wikipedia criteria for notability. I think it needs its own wiki article. Anyway, to address the questions in reverse order:
  • "Certiorari Denied" means that the case does not set binding case law, and that the Supreme Court will not review this specific decision;
  • The dates of the appeal and reversal are on the PDF that the footnote links to. It was appealed to the Federal Court of the Northern District of Texas;
  • The original court case was filed in 1998, in California. The Texas case was filed in 2000;jonathon (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:OperaDivaBabe & material from [[1]]

OperaDivaBabe has repeatedly inserted text from the site marykaytribute.com. Nevermind that the material is strongly promotional, etc., it is also from website without a GFDL-compatible license. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The edits I reverted were due her POV pushing. jonathon (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the copywritten material immediately; if there are additional copyright violations, please flag it and I will immediately remove it. I object that the other changes made were considered "Point of View Pushing" - I find it incredulous that the previous wiki definition is not considered "POV Pushing" as negative and littered with inaccuracies as it was. All I did was create a more balanced view of a company that has been internationally recognized and awarded - not to mention remove content that was outright false. As you can see valid criticisms remain - but it is *unfair* to only have content that is negative in the definition of anything. PS - do your homework about the company if you believe any of the statements regarding the creation of the business or it's decades of accolades are incorrect or merely "Point of View." —Preceding unsigned comment added by OperaDivaBabe (talk • contribs) 00:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Mary Kay Ashe's biography belongs in that article, not the article on the company. Almost a decade elapsed between announcing a moratorium on animal testing, and declaring that they would no longer do any animal testing. The number of "middle man" distributors is irrelevant to whether or not an organization is a pyramid scheme. All of the levels that one can achieve in Mary kay are dependent upon recruiting a specific number of people, and them purchasing a specific amount of product at wholesale. Retail sales are irrelevant to the level one attains in Mary Kay. This applies equally to Queen of Sales Court and Queen of Recruiting Court.The section on the Mary Kay Ashe Foundation leads reads like an advertisement. Neither is it a part of Mary Kay (Corporate), which is what this article is about. jonathon (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
1) The history of a company is an integral part of any encyclopedic definition of the company, and thus the story of how this company was created is allowable. 2) I do not purport to understand how a multi-billion dollar company unilaterally implements a decision to stop animal testing - all I know is that Mary Kay is now a leader in the cosmetics industry for banning animal testing (which includes NOT farming out testing to labs who DO test on animals). 3) As to your comment on middle-man distributors being irrelevant - it is absolutely relevant when alleging a "Pyramid Scheme!" To quote the Federal Trade Commission's definition of a Pyramid scheme (from the prepared statement of the General Counsel of the US Federal Trade Commission): "Pyramid schemes...all share one overriding characteristic. They promise consumers or investors large profits based primarily on recruiting others to join their program, not based on profits from any real investment or real sale of goods to the public. Some schemes may purport to sell a product, but they often simply use the product to hide their pyramid structure. There are two tell-tale signs that a product is simply being used to disguise a pyramid scheme: inventory loading and a lack of retail sales. Inventory loading occurs when a company's incentive program forces recruits to buy more products than they could ever sell, often at inflated prices. If this occurs throughout the company's distribution system, the people at the top of the pyramid reap substantial profits, even though little or no product moves to market. The people at the bottom make excessive payments for inventory that simply accumulates in their basements. A lack of retail sales is also a red flag that a pyramid exists. Many pyramid schemes will claim that their product is selling like hot cakes. However, on closer examination, the sales occur only between people inside the pyramid structure or to new recruits joining the structure, not to consumers out in the general public." Mary Kay's direct-sales structure does not fall within this definition, nor in the other ways you allege above. 4) Lastly, charitable organizations set up by the parent company don't even deserve a footnote within the company definition? OperaDivaBabe (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The article covers the history of the company. The article on Mary Kay Ashe covers how she founded the company. It doesn't need to be duplicated here. The "co-operation" with PETA came after the other cosmetic companies stopped doing animal testing. "There are two tell-tale signs that a product is simply being used to disguise a pyramid scheme: inventory loading and a lack of retail sales." As the data in the article demonstrates, there is no logical reason for an initial inventory purchase of more than US$1,800. US$600 would be far closer to the amount that a consultant will sell at MSRP to bona fide third party retail customers. The sole reason that Touch of Pink, and the other liquidators are able to purchase so much inventory, is because of front loading, and other types of inventory pushing practiced by the directors. There are currently 296 items on eBay listed as "Mary Kay Wholesale Lot". There are 5379 Mary Kay items tagged as "skin care" on eBay. There are 13854 Mary Kay items tagged as "makeup", with 4504 of them having "buy it now" prices. By comparison "Estee Lauder" has 6397 items in all categories. "Ralph Lauren" has 51076 items total, of which 1716 are in the "health and beauty" category. "Old Navy" has 25961 items total, of which nine are in the "health and beauty" category. Between comparing the amount of product auctioned there, and that the overwhelming majority on eBay sell for less than wholesale, the conclusion is that there is a lack of retail sales. The anecdotal evidence indicates that Mary Kay Corporate took a major financial hit, with the amount of product returned by consultants between 2004 and 2007. The compensation structure for Mary Kay implies that it is a product based pyramid scheme. As far as the Mary Kay Ashe Foundation is concerned, that is discussed in the article on Mary Kay Ashe. jonathon (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI - Mary Kay ASH. I don't agree that the history of how she created HER COMPANY is irrelevant to the article. Animal testing - truly, what does it matter how long it took as long as it DID take and is so strongly supported today? Mary Kay is hardly the only cosmetics company to have tested on animals in the past. So many cosmetic companies still do it today, and yet Mary Kay vehemently does not.
Part one of the Pyramid discussion - Let's be abundantly clear: purchase of inventory is by no means MANDATORY. Period, end of story. When a consultant begins their business, they are advised by their Director as to company incentives and the reasons why one may choose to stock inventory. There's no gun, no blackmail, no threats of bodily harm. I would like to say that all Directors advise consultants to purchase inventory they will comfortably sell (or use for their own use only) in the near-term - I am not so naive, but I *will* say that Mary Kay Corporate trains Directors endlessly and repeatedly to do just that. The rationale you're referencing behind what is a reasonable inventory purchase are questionable at best, as the success of each beauty consultant's business is SOLELY dependent upon their individual work ethic - nothing more. How can you create statistics across the board when there are plenty of individuals who come into Mary Kay and NEVER order a THING, lots who order just the yearly minimum they need to continue their wholesale discount, and some who decide to order inventory and work a business?
What's the point of front-loading a consultant's inventory purchase, anyway? How do you really think that works? Let's paint the scenario: new consultant joins, and is somehow magically "talked" into buying $2400 worth or product she never intends to sell. Or maybe she does - doesn't matter. The director makes a nice commission from Mary Kay's profits on the sale (which is the same way people in corporate get paid, by the way - from the company's profits from sales - just thought I'd point that out). In this scenario, consultant feels rooked into spending $2400. Betrayed. Maybe she tries to sell the product, maybe not. A SMART director works with that consultant daily to teach her to sell the products and work a successful business. But a Director can only do so much - the consultant has to book appointments, hold classes. If they are not willing to do that, there's nothing much anyone can do to change it. So the consultant returns the product with the 90% buy-back guarantee. The month following the product return, the Director pays back EVERY CENT of commission earned. And the appeal of this scenario is...? It is in a Director's best interest to train a consultant to sell that inventory! It makes NO SENSE not to.
I am surprised you would use ebay as a measuring stick for what is successful and what is not. Post-Katrina, there was a RUSH of Mary Kay products on ebay. You want to buy those products where you don't know where they've been? Under floodwaters for who knows how long? In the back of someone's trunk in blistering TX heat? Let's take a look at some of those products on ebay - the first PAGE I looked at had ALL discontinued products. Old products, old formulas. It's not uncommon for stores to sell older product for less than half price to move it, so the "less than wholesale" comment is irrelevant. Let's be clear - it is ILLEGAL for beauty consultants to sell products via ebay. It's like buying something at a flea market - you have no idea what you're getting. Mary Kay is a customer-service business; Mary Kay Ash would roll over in her grave if she knew some of her products were being sold on ebay.
Your "anecdotal evidence" is exactly that - anecdotal. Since Mary Kay does not publish financial specifics, a lot of anecdotal evidence unfortunately comes from websites that cater to people who are no longer Mary Kay beauty consultants. There are just as many stories of women (and men) who are successful in Mary Kay. Obviously, mine is one of them.
"The compensation structure for Mary Kay implies that it is a product based pyramid scheme." By that logic, every other company that pays it's sales force from it's profits is also a pyramid. In other words - I'm sorry, you're simply incorrect. Mary Kay is not a pyramid. Mary Kay is Direct-sales and a member in good standing with the Direct Sales association. Pyramids are not allowed to become members of the DSA, NOR ARE PYRAMIDS LEGAL. For more information please refer to the breakdown of why Mary Kay is not a pyramid I've listed in the article. OperaDivaBabe (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
To claim that the purchase of inventory is not mandatory is, at best, disingenuous. Whilst unitnet is not representative, the clear message there is that if one does not make a US$3,600 initial inventory purchase, one is not worthy of the "training" that the director offers. To say that "Directors advise consultants to purchase inventory they will comfortably sell (or use for their own use only) in the near-term" is flat out wrong. The consistent pattern is one of directors pushing for the purchase of more inventory than can be sold by a consultant within a reasonable period of time. Take a look at the "How to be a national within 1,000 days" document. One of the issues in "Blackmon v Mary Kay" is how much Front Loading Mary Kay tolerates. As far as "reasonable inventory" goes, no business that expects to remain in business will have an initial inventory that is more than they project to sell within six months. For a chain such as Wallmart, or Kroger, the expectation is that the inventory will be sold within one week. Bookstores and record stores, which are expected to have low inventory turnover, expect to rotate their inventory every six months. Coin shops and stamp shops expect an inventory turn over every six to nine months. Darci wrote a nice article explaining how to legally con consultants into not returning inventory. The sole purpose of that article was so that would be director does not take a financial hit, when the consultant inevitably quits Mary Kay, and discovers that they can get 90% back. Tracking such things, you'll discover that Mary Kay (Corporate) in the last three years, has made a number of significant changes in both how, and the time it takes for them to process the refund. That discontinued products show up in quantity on ebay, merely reinforces the fact that front loading is standard operating procedure. It is not illegal for a consultant to sell product on eBay. It might be a violation of the contract one has with eBay. Furthermore, a good lawyer could get that contract nullified, on the basis that the terms in it are unconscionable. Mary Kay products have been available on eBay since at least 2000. Whist anecdotal evidence is subjective, the hard financial data that Mary Kay publishes supports the anecdotal evidence. It's pretty hard to claim that there are as many "dissatisfied ex-consultants" as "satisfied current consultants", when there is a turnover rate of almost 70% per year. (That figure alone indicates that something is very wrong with the recruiting process.) The Direct Sales Association has publicly admitted that all of its members are in violation of its code of ethics, and that it does not expect any of them to adhere to its code of ethics. Equinox International is merely one example that demonstrates the falseness of the claim that the DSA does not admit pyramids. There is a huge difference between the compensation scheme for Mary Kay, and other product based pyramid schemes, and that paid by other sales organizations. For starters, other organizations don't pay on the basis of products purchased by the sales force. Equinox International demonstrates the inaccuracy of what you wrote about a pyramid scheme.jonathon (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Jonathon, but your allegations simply are not correct nor factual. I'm not "claiming" that inventory is not mandatory - it is clearly printed in all training materials provided by Mary Kay! I'm not sure how official, printed documentation can be so easily disregarded! My comments regarding the training of directors is also not "flat out wrong" - I AM a Director trained by Mary Kay and simply will not tolerate your dismissal. I challenge you to find published Mary Kay materials that train Directors in any way other than the one I've described. I am amazed that you so easily generalize "a consistent pattern" of front-loading - in what world? Yours? Not mine. With regards to the "how to be an NSD in 1000 days" - the only thing I could find when I Googled that is some sort of toolkit DESIGNED BY A CONSULTANT who references a speech given by "a National" as the basis for the toolkit - are you kidding me? So perhaps *one* National Sales Director is giving that sort of advice. Doesn't mean it's advocated by Mary Kay or even any other representative of Mary Kay. Since we are all independent business owners, it is the prerogative of that (supposed) national to advocate her idea. I can't speak for the company and their thoughts about it (if it's true), other than to say there is nothing officially printed by Mary Kay that advocates becoming a National Sales Director in 1000 days. Let's not lump support by the entire company behind the (supposed) statements of one person - statements I couldn't even verify, by the way.
You allude to "tracking such things" as inventory return to Mary Kay and that they've implemented changes. Are you an employee of Mary Kay that you can make such a statement without facts to back it up?
"DARCI" is a mascot for training, nothing more. There are NO documents from Mary Kay that describe "how to legally con consultants into not returning inventory." And *I* am accused of POV Pushing?
According to the Dallas Morning News article Nov 24th, 2006, the issues of Blackmon v Mary Kay are not about "front-loading" at all but about business practices that do not align with the terms of her Independent Sales Director agreement. The article states, "She was accused of placing a sales order in another person's name; endorsing the business of a family friend; selling hostess aprons, instructional DVDs, CDs and travel vouchers; and promoting lending services from a third party." The article goes on to state that Ms. Blackmon was officially warned to cease and desist for years before her termination. I will be interested to see what happens, ans I know Ms. Blackmon is very successful and highly respected. I do not understand how this suit supports your argument of "front-loading."
Selling Mary Kay on ebay is not illegal, you are correct - I was not clear: it is a direct violation of the terms of the Beauty consultant agreement to "display or (sell) Mary Kay products in public, retail or service establishments of any kind is inconsistent with the terms of (the Independent Beauty Consultant Agreement General Terms and Conditions.)" Selling products on ebay as an independent beauty consultant is prohibited under this clause, and discovery of this infraction is cause for termination.
As for not being able to sell $3600 within 6 months - I did it in less than four weeks, and I am far from alone. I am not saying every experience will be mine, but your argument is that *no one* can do it nor can anyone expect to do it. Many do. It just depends on the work ethic of the consultant in question - success in this business is up to each individual.
Equinox International is not a member of the DSA. When it was ruled by the FTC to be a pyramid in 2000, it was no longer a member. Mary Kay is a member in good standing with the DSA. Nowhere on the DSA website does it state anything CLOSE to your statement "The Direct Sales Association has publicly admitted that all of its members are in violation of its code of ethics, and that it does not expect any of them to adhere to its code of ethics." Making such a HUGE generalization requires proof - please provide it if you have it.
Lastly, your statement, "For starters, other organizations don't pay on the basis of products purchased by the sales force" is incorrect - independent contractors are NOT employees of Mary Kay. We are independent contractors; we are our own business owners who sell Mary Kay products. To further my example, any company that sells product to Target for resale pays it's employees, it's bills, other costs of doing business from the profit margin. For Mary Kay, I am the retail outlet - not the staff. My purchases mean the very same thing as if Mary Kay sold in a retail store. And just like a retail store, sometimes product is returned and do affect the bottom line. Those figures are real for Mary Kay, Revlon, Lancome - it's a rule of business. And any commission, based on the business structure of the company, is a cost of doing business and so paid from the profit margin.
I am very, very sorry that you obviously had a negative experience with Mary Kay, and it is also obvious that we are not going resolve this issue. I would respectfully ask that you go through the changes I've made line by line and not arbitrarily delete them - I've tried to create a balanced view, keeping both positive and negative aspects for the reader. If I was totally pro-MK in the article, I would have deleted any and all negative references! But I didn't - I believe all sides of the issue deserve a voice, and the previous article was incredibly skewed to the negative. With that in mind, I also believe that you can't delete information based on your feelings. The law is clear - Mary Kay is NOT a pyramid. Period. And I simply can't allow a wikipedia article to make false allegations that it is! OperaDivaBabe (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Official documentation can be disregarded until Mary Kay Corporate refuses to allow an initial purchase of more than US$600, and requires verification that at least 70% of previously purchased inventory has been sold to bona fide thrid party retail customers. By establishing Inventory levels for recognition, that are well above both the mean and mode for retail sales by consultants in a calender year, Mary Kay Corporate is unofficially endorsing front loading. Go read the descriptions that consultants have given of their experience returning inventory on The Pink Truth, Pinking Sheers, and similar websites. It is pretty obvious that the company has made major, significant changes in how they handle inventory returns, and steps they are taking that are legal, to minimize that type of return. One of the business practices in Blakmon v Mary Kay was inventory loading. It got lost in the other things, because it was the first official admission by corporate that it knew of such going ons. I didn't say one couldn't sell US$3,600 within six months, but rather that it was several orders of magnitude above the norm. Equinox International is major embarrassment for the DSA, because it was using it as an example of the integrity of its members, knowing that there were a number of active civil and criminal investigations of it. The beauty consultants are Mary Kay's sales force. In bona fide sales organization, the sales manager is paid on the real productivity of the team. In Mary Kay, the director is paid according to the alleged productivity of the team. As Unitnet shows, that productivity is not related to bona fide retail sales, but to the psychological pressure that the director inflicts upon their unit, in the name of "team spirit". The law is clear that Mary Kay is a product based pyramid scheme. jonathon (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
"Official documentation can be disregarded..." That pretty much says it all, I suppose. I'm finished here - there's no point in arguing with someone who refuses to use facts or substantiate arguments with anything other than slander. The law IS clear - Mary Kay is NOT a product-based pyramid scheme. End of story. Have a nice day. OperaDivaBabe (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason the official documentation can be ignored, is because Mary Kay Corporate encourages the violation of its poli9cies, by ref8using to clamp down on National Directors, Directors, and Consultants who violate their polices., And the mere fact that they refuse to adhere to either FTC rules, or the Amway Safe Harbour Defence, reinforces the position that they do not care about the polices, using them as window dressing in their support fleecing people of their money. jonathon (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
My last statement: Don't you think the FTC, the SEC, and the states with anti-pyramid laws would be working OVERTIME to bring charges to SUCH a high profile company as Mary Kay were it in such blatant violation of the laws as you allege? You can argue inaccuracies and anecdotes all day long - the simple fact is that while you are entitled to your opinions, I would hope that you could rise above your POV to help create a balanced article about the company. Since you are unable to do that, we are at an impasse. OperaDivaBabe (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Economics. Neither the FTC nor the various state attorney-generals have the budget, or manpower required for a successful prosecution. jonathon (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)