You can read that post here.
Since then, the original author and I have begun a conversation of sorts in the comments section. Click the link above and scroll down to the comments if you would like to see our conversation in context.
Because his most recent comment was rather lengthy and my response even lengthier, I thought it may be beneficial to some if I posted them both here on the main page. This is my response to his comment. To read his comment, click here.
I think that your use of big words, while admirable in its own right, has confused you a little bit. Allow me to simplify. If I am wrong, please correct me.
- It was presumptuous of you to assign the same financial degradation that you experienced to this woman with a Mary Kay sticker on her window. (Even if that was not the message you intended to convey.)
- You believe that ALL participants in Mary Kay are unwittingly exposed to risk. Operative word being ALL.
- You believe that (and forgive me for the lack of clarity here but this is where things started to get confusing): women and families should (either)
- Take pause to consider whether or not the opportunity fits their situation.
- Realize there is no opportunity, it is just a ‘polished pitch’, essentially bait that they will either take and get caught or ignore and live.
*note, it can only be one or the other… a or b.
- Similar to warning someone about a bad neighborhood, you are suggesting that my examples of good ways to run your business are in fact warnings about Mary Kay, as though to say that Mary Kay is the bad neighborhood.
*This is where I start to get confused, so if the above summary is wrong, please correct me. If it is correct, re-read what you wrote… it doesn’t come close to making sense.
- This one is really confusing so bear with me as I give it a go… I think you are saying, “This site is nothing more than an extension of Pink Truth and others like it, all of which Mary Kay refuses to acknowledge”. In essence you seem to be saying, “Ha ha, you are trying to prove us wrong but you are actually supporting our argument”.
Again, please correct any misguided assumptions that I have made. In the meantime, assuming these assumptions are accurate, here is my response.
- Yes, it was presumptuous of you to assume that this women needed saving, that is why I wrote this post.
- It is difficult for me to believe that you honestly believe that ALL MK participants are unaware of the inherent risk in starting a business. That being said, I will assume that you mean “most” or “a lot”. I counter that with (and have before): It is unfortunate that some people (MK or otherwise) choose to use anything they can to exploit the weaknesses of other people. However, they rarely form the majority, and can not be used as ammunition against the thing they used to exploit you. Take God and religion for an example. People have horrendously massacred millions “in the name of God”. Does that mean that God is a brutal murderer? Do their actions nullify the existence of God? These questions are being hotly debated as we speak. Perhaps a more down to earth example. I really like
. I currently own two. Let’s assume that I like Toyota so much that I went out (and at great expense to me) purchased a Toyota Dealership. If I found out that a Toyota dealership near me was selling their cars illegally. Here in So. Toyota that would probably be something like selling to illegal immigrants by fabricating identifications. I would not sell my dealership, walk away from Cal. Toyotaforever, and start a campaign to stop every warm-blooded American from buying . I grant you that there are some devious people that have somehow managed to get into the MK infrastructure and are abusing that good name. However, I think that you will need to present slightly more sufficient evidence before any of us will ‘swallow’ that ALL participants in MK are being unwittingly scammed. Toyota
- Depending on which one you meant my responses follow:
- That is what I am all about. This decision should not be made lightly. Whether you are getting into this for fun as a hobby, or pursuing it as a career, or anywhere in between, you should take more than just a little bit of time to consider whether it is an appropriate decision for you and your family. If you are a follower of God, you should seek His wisdom as well.
- Refer to my response to point number two. I respect all opinions and views, but I cannot agree with you if you are trying to convince me and others that this 44 year old company is nothing more than a ‘polished pitch’ or a baited hook. This is not a company that relies on people to ‘swallow’ some falsified, imaginary, unobtainable dream. The company simply sells a product. Their chosen method of distribution is through independent consultants. It is people that think they will ‘find the shortcut’ to incredible wealth that ruin this sort of thing for everyone else. Somewhere along the line, someone took the idea and twisted it into something it was never meant to be. It seems that you and your wife were unfortunate enough to be in the path of the unfortunate disaster that resulted. The problem that I have with your argument here (in addition to imputing your experience on ALL Mary Kay participants) is that the web cast by slick ‘get-rich-quick’ schemers is only effective with people that are willing to sacrifice [common sense, ethics, values, etc] in order to achieve instant (or near instant) gratification. You are, in essence, proclaiming that through your ineptitude you perpetuated the problem and are now attempting to absolve yourself by taking cheap shots at the ones that are doing it right. Mary Kay Corporate is not the problem. The NSD’s are not the problem. The problem is when someone (anyone really) decides that they are going to cheat the system. Whether it is by frontloading new consultants or buying their way to the next level, it will always prove to be an individual that tried to cheat. Naturally pinpointing where this began is difficult. (To say the least!) However, if you are going to come out of the gate saying that MKC is the problem, you had better have proof. I will repeat myself. I respect all OPINIONS and VIEWS. However, rest assured that I will not allow opinions to be stated as facts on this site.
- Based on the limited understanding I have of your experience in Mary Kay, I think I can understand your feeling that Mary Kay is a bad neighborhood. However, please don’t be so naïve as to think that another “sundry” (I assume that you know this is the same as miscellaneous and sheds a great deal of light on why you may have been unsuccessful.) business opportunity should be approached with any less diligence and wariness. You see Mary Kay is a sort of hybrid or crossover of a business model. It does not require the full commitment of a normal entrepreneurial endeavor. I am sure that you have heard the comparisons to opening a fully independent retail shop (clothing, food, etc). It also does not stick you in a 9a-6p, clock punching, hourly wage, desk jockey position. This (you might want to sit down for this one) actually appeals to some people. In order to achieve this balance, some benefits have to be removed from the extremes. You can’t have it all. Imagine if I created an opportunity for you to participate in. It allowed you to work when (and if) you wanted, it cost you absolutely nothing up front (or ever), you were guaranteed a massive paycheck every week, and you get all the prestige of being the owner of your own company without having to worry about making anything happen ever. Would you sign up? I would hope so. The problem is that this is a fairy tale. If someone told you that Mary Kay was like that and you believed them, I am far more worried about your judgment than I was before. Mary Kay is not a bad neighborhood. A person that comes into the neighborhood and starts suckering unsuspecting passerby’s with delusions of grandeur gives the neighborhood a bad name. It seems that over time these people find that they don’t belong in the neighborhood and move along. (*sometimes they start their own bitter community and launch campaigns against the neighborhood they tried to scam their way into!) It is unfortunate that these characters make an appearance at all. However, like a stranger offering children candy, you can not guarantee your child will never run into him, you can only warn your child not to listen to his offers. You would not, by contrast, forbid your child from ever tasting candy. Would you?
- Finally, this site is not an extension of Pink Truth. This site does not support Pink Truth’s wildly inaccurate accusations that Mary Kay is an evil corporation that should be avoided at all costs. This is a site that examines the Mary Kay opportunity from positive, neutral and negative points of view. This site aims to:
- Demonstrate that Mary Kay is a genuine and viable opportunity to make money for anyone so inclined
- Warn newcomers and participants alike of the potential pitfalls inherent with any similar endeavor as well as those specific to Mary Kay.
- Offer tips and advice to anyone interested in making the most of their Mary Kay experience.
Ignoring your atrocious grammatical errors, allow me to respond to your final paragraph one piece at a time.
“I applaud your blog as an additional outlet for information re the “opportunity,” regardless of the stance you take.”
“Ironically, your offering yet another conduit for retort to the many testimonials from those who’ve suffered at the hands of the “opportunity” validates the growing body of information/warnings that the “opportunity” should be avoided, that potential MK targets should be weary.”
Wow, can you say, “run-on, consider revising”? Yes, I am offering a conduit for retort and testimonials. No, it is not ironic. I WANT both sides of the story to be presented side by side. This validates my point that one should exercise caution before committing their finances to any endeavor. It does not mean that the opportunity (any opportunity really, but specifically the Mary Kay opportunity) should be avoided. If potential MK targets had to read your concoctions, they should (or would) indeed be weary. I think you meant wary. I normally would not deride someone for such a minuscule error, but considering the very high and mighty nature of your comment, I will not let it slide.
“MK Corporate refuses to even publically acknowledge this growing body of “Mary Kay Cosmetics clarity.”
*Again, if you are going to try to overwhelm me (or my readers) with your immense vocabulary, I am going to seize every opportunity you afford me to point out the incongruities in your persona. The word you are looking for is publicly, not “publically”. “…refuses to even publicly acknowledge this…”
Let me ask you this. If you started a company that sold widgets and someone came along and set up a booth right next to your shop with literature explaining that you were nothing more than a fraud, what would you do? He has the freedom of speech. You know that he is full of it. You know that you offer a fantastic product for a fair and reasonable price. You have many customers that visit you regularly and your business is flourishing regardless. The best thing you can do is ignore him. If he has a legitimate complaint about the product/service he received, obviously you would try to make things right. But unfortunately, some people don’t want to see things set straight, they just want to complain. From what I have observed so far, this is the case at Pink Truth. The ‘key players’ there are not interested in truth or resolution of their complaints. They simply want to complain. That is within their right to do. However, when it comes to the company my wife represents, I will not stand idly by while liars flaunt their opinions as truth.
“I welcome such acknowledgment from sites such as yours. I look forward to reading more.”
I acknowledge that there are risks inherent in any entrepreneurial endeavor. I DO NOT acknowledge that Pink Truth presents anything even closely resembling the truth.
Thanks for stopping by.