I have read the lawsuit. 70+ pages of fun, to be sure. (That was sarcasm, BTW).
The suit is mainly about Trademark infringement, but it also brings up several other points as well.
- The lawsuit alleges that the Webers are knowingly encouraging IBC's to violate the terms of their contracts.
- Products purchased through ToP are not covered by the MK guarantee, therefore ToP is potentially fostering ill-will for MK with their (ToP) customers. (For example, if a ToP customer wants to return a product to MK, it is not covered, so the result could be ill-will from the customer and damaging to MK's reputation.)
- ToP also carries non-MK products, and that could be confusing to customers.
- MK wants ToP's records so MK can find out which IBC's are supplying ToP with merchandise.
I have also read the commentary on the anti-MK sites. The general consensus is that the poor Webers are being wrongly persecuted and MK doesn't have a case.
I disagree on both counts.
Since I am not a lawyer, I am not going to argue the legal strength of the lawsuit. The courts will decide that. There may be readers that have a legal background - by all means, share your views if that is the case.
I will, however, express my views on other matters, since I cannot express them on the anti-Mk sites.
There are 2 things I find puzzling:
- The Webers are applauded for helping IBC's violate their contracts. Isn't that one of the things the anti-MKers villify Directors for doing?
- The Webers give 50% of wholesale for products, and they are seen as wonderful; yet MK offers a 90% of wholesale buyback and they are villified for this.
There is more I want to say, but I will post this much so the discussion will get rolling. I will add more later tonight.
Please give your views on this lawsuit, no matter which side you are on.
Posts
I really should learned to stop being amazed when I read on the anti-mk sites the hypocrasy of many of the postings.
ReplyDeleteAs for the lawsuit, I am no lawyer and won't pretend to be, like others I will wait and see.
If you read PT though, the Webers don't need a lawyer, they just need Lazy Gardens and a few others, they seem to know everything about the law. It would be interesting to see if in the future someone took the information or direction of that site as factual and got themselves in a great big mess. (And Touch of Pink has no worries, PT is on their side so a bunch of anonymous posters on a blog are really going to make a difference)??
Secondly, if they want to say how MK is such a preditor, what would you consider the Webers, if they are offering only 1/2 of what individuals have paid for something and then bragging about the millions of dollars they are making. Is this not exploiting, the ones they already feel have been exploited?
Third point, I find it fascinating that while many of the posters could not read anything while in Mary Kay that would have helped them not end up in a financial mess - now they will sit and read a 70 lawsuit.
Fourth, many now want to write letters about how the were abused in MK and get them notraized so that this can be used for Touch of Pink???????? Now I would like to suggest to them if they are going to do this, they might want to use their real names - as a statement from Lazy Gardens, Raisinberry, Queen of Section 2, etc... might cause the Judge to bust out in laughter.
So, when I read, the message I get from everyone over there is that because they feel they were wronged by MK it is okay for others to do wrong as long as it hurts MKC. We all acknowledge their are good and bad in MK, so the honest ethical consultants that will be hurt by the liquidators should just suck it up and deal with it. I bet if the biggest mouths over on PT were still in MK, they would be screaming about the liquidatos and about MK doing something about them.
And last, now many of these posters will now no longer stay puc's they will buy their MK of Touch of Pink, do they not realize, in the long run they are still supporting a Company that they want to bring down? For TOP to sell the products they still at one point in time had to have had the products purchased from MKC.
Is it only me that doesn't understand most of their arguements???
I have a question kind of regarding this topic that maybe a Director like mk4me or someone more experienced can answer. Legally, am I allowed to purchase from Touch of pink?
ReplyDeleteI have ordered from that site twice--only about 40 dollars worth all together. I am an active IBC, and all I purchased were some MK tapes (training), some mascara applicators, and a discontinued limited ed. Constant Color Lip Creme (for myself, not a customer.) I haven't ordered product or anything like that, just Section 2 items like the tapes that I can't get from MK and applicators that are cheaper there. I was looking through Legal Ease last night on InTouch and did not see anything about buying from these type of places. I know ethically it may not be the best to buy from people who are not helping MK or my own business, but is it okay legally? I don't want to get in any trouble w/ the company. Thank you for your time.
Jen, I think you would only have to worry if you are selling what you bought from ToP. Unless you buy directly from MKC you can't offer the guarantee. And you don't know what's outdated if you buy product from ToP. But if you are only getting section 2, I don't see the big deal.
ReplyDeleteCan we keep the PT bashing to a minimum? I would hate to become what they are. Anyone with a brain knows not to listen to all the drivel over there. But can we focus on the lawsuit itself? What do we think this means for MKC, etc.
I, personally, don't have a problem with ToP. And many here have said that people are more than willing to pay full price and it's the service that counts; so I don't see where ToP will have an impact on their businesses.
As for MKC saying that ToP is encouraging IBCs to violate their contracts . . . I think that is crap. Why should TOP be made to police what IBCs are doing?
And the potential ill-will to MK for not honoring the guarantee . . . This I can understand. I have had customers bring me stuff they bought from someone else 10+ years ago. Of course they did not have a receipt. They could have bought it at a garage sale, for all I know. I did a product replacement and was done with it. But who knows where it came from.
I don't understand why MKC cares who is selling to TOP. They got their sale. What does it matter where it is going next? Would they rather it sat in the basement of an IBC, collecting duct?
I don't know a whole lot about MK liquidators, however, I do know that if they are working fairly, they are first encouraging consultants to sell back what they can to MKC for the 90% buyback and then buying whatever MKC won't take back because it is more than a year old. Those that I am familiar with buy it back at 25% of the retail cost (which is half of what we pay to begin with) and then sell it at a low cost as well.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have only encountered one instance where a customer chose to purchase discounted MK online rather than from me. It's OK. It didn't break my business.
I do think it is a good thing that MKC is making an example of TOPC. Although these types of services don't seem to impact our businesses now, as more and more develop it could become problematic. I have mixed feeling about it all really.
Oh, I should clarify that when I say "fairly," I mean fair to whomever they are purchasing their supply from--typically a former MK consultant or an MK consultant looking to get out of business.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, it provides a quick fix for those who are stuck with old prodcuts, but it could potentially cause long-term consequences for active IBC's.
HI, I will weigh in on this. I own a hairsalon and I can tell you that I don't retail. Why you ask because I hear I can get it online for half that price. Well, then get it on line. I think that it can hurt a persons business. It does in the hair arena. So if I purchase a product from the manufactor for say 5.98 and I mark it up to make a profit and these people can go on line and get it for 4.98 they are going to do that.
ReplyDeleteI think MK should pursue this. This is just my opinion and if the manufactures of hair products would have done this it might make my retail a little higher however I just roll with the punches and don't carry a lot of inventory. So there you go.
Have a great day
I think the key point that MKC is making with the ToP owners encouraging IBC's to violate their contracts is that the Webers KNOW better. Being a former IBC, Ms. Weber knows she is encouraging IBC's to violate their contracts, and is in fact facilitating those violations.
ReplyDeletePerhaps if Ms. Weber had never been an IBC, it would not be an issue.
I don't know much about ToP. Does she actively call IBCs and ask them sell her their inventory? Or is she there to buy and doesn't question whether or not they are current IBCs? (This is the same to me as IBCs using the husband unawareness plan. We don't ask our customers if they are hiding purchases from their husbands when they use more than one form of payment.) I don't see how it is the Weber's responsibilty to find out if their customers are currant or terminated or just no longer IBCs. And since MKC does not police their own directors why should they expect someone outside of their organization to police anyone associated with the MK name?
ReplyDeleteI get that they want the customer list to go after those who are violating their agreements. That's fine and good. Don't do something illegal and you won't get in trouble with the law. But if the Weber's are no longer IBCs I don't see how they can be held accountable. Any more than I should blame MKC because I was frontloaded. It's just doesn't make sence to me. But I will keep reading to get more insight.
Here is my take on this. I think that MK should not worry about TOP BUT if they are doing it so they wont be responsible for returns that are phony or quality of product by all means go after them.
ReplyDeleteIm not against (and I know im in the minority here) liquidators as long as they are not active consultants. TOP serves a purpose (I have never ordered from them) but you can get outdated product that no other person has. PT has no legal leg to stand on as far as helping TOP and MK probably wont pursue anything if TOP takes their site down. Are the anti sites encouraging IBC's to send product back OF COURSE THEY ARE they would love to see the downfall of MK Corporate. TOP Im sure cannot afford the type of lawyers that MKC has but at the same time MKC wont make any money suing TOP. I think its a bad situation for all involved. MKC is not going to loae any money over TOP they are doing it to protect their name and YES to stop having people order from liquidators its business sense.
my mind has been really wondering so would y'all help me, for years I have earned the Court of Sales ring, it doesn't even seem that hard to me because I have been in business long enough that I have a large customer base and with their reorders and classes, the money is there for the production. In a way, I have settled into the amount I do because it gives me adequate time for other things and sufficient money as income.
ReplyDeleteNow I am reading that some consultants will getting the same recognition and then they sell the product they don't need to a group like TOP, as I know I have
done the work to earn the prize,it just makes me wonder if those that are so proudly also accepting the prize, actually did the work or found a shortcut?
Since it sounds like (on PT) many of them have known people that have sold product to Top, it upsets me because to me it tarnishes the work I (and the other honest ones) have done to earn the title. I truly hope it is a rare instance that this happens.
Now my question, why would one want to spend that much money for a minute of recognition?
Why would someone even want to go thru all this just to sell product they purchased and loose more money?
Did you think it is just a couple of bad apples that do this, or do you think it is alot of them?
I must be really naive because reading that shocked me, but also really made me sad that people can be that mentally disturbed that they would go to levels like this to appear as something they are not.
I just think more examples like this show even more it isn't MK's style of business that doesn't work.
What doesn't work is when people try cheating, and their cheating hurts not only them but also us.
& I am serious, if you all would share some of your opinions on my questions, I really would like to hear some other thoughts. Thanks
First of all, welcome to Jen and Crissy. I don’t often get the chance to greet people as soon as they post (and I think that our community here does a good job of saying “hi”, but I would like to welcome everyone new to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteShay, good topic, I think this one will be very revealing in terms of what everyone feels that the role(s) of MKC, IBC’s, Customers, Resellers, etc. should be. Don’t be shy everyone! Just throw out your own two cents… and everyone remember that unless otherwise stated (and cited) these are all OPINIONS and not legal advice!
Crissy,
I want to address your “Can we keep the PT bashing to a minimum?” request in more detail later, but for now I will point out that we do not really “bash” PT here, so much as point out where they are inaccurate, misinformed, or dead wrong. If it comes across as bashing, I am not really sure that I feel badly about that. Many people “with a brain” as you say will find that site and, if there is no rebuttal to their claims, leave thinking that there is some deep, dark, sinister secret about Mary Kay that they should avoid. We are merely providing the “sane” (and hopefully balanced) expression of what Mary Kay is “really” about. I.E. “Yes, there are problems, they look like this and this, and here is how to avoid them.” - more on that later –
Regarding your questions about why MKC would pursue legal measures in this matter, I tend to think in the same way that you do. I look at the “why” and the “why not” of all circumstances. So I tend to ask myself similar questions and try to come to the most “all encompassing” understanding of the positions of all parties involved.
That being said, my feel on this situation is that Mary Kay has strived (and has most likely spent obscene amounts of time, energy and money) to create a brand image and awareness that people everywhere will instantly recognize. If they feel (and I tend to agree with them) that people offering “2nd hand” products at a discount rate, with no guarantee, and considerably diminished customer service weakens their brand identity, than they are well within their rights to pursue those people in whatever way they can.
I get considerably frustrated when I read about someone that tries to use someone else’s good (brand or otherwise) name to turn a quick, sleazy profit. I get even more irritated when the person who’s good name is being “abused” tries to defend themselves and ends up drawing criticism from unaffected sources. This, to me, is reminiscent of the Christmas event. You can read more about it here, but basically Mary Kay made a donation to a holiday gift drive. PT took it upon themselves to reject the gifts on behalf of the homeless (and hard hit) recipients.
To me, the equation is simple. Mary Kay says, “If you want to buy (and re-sell) our products – i.e. be a distributor for Mary Kay – here are the ‘approved’ ways of doing that. If you want to represent our product, here is how you have to do it. It is OUR product, if you want to sell OUR product, you have to follow OUR rules.” If people don’t follow the rules, Mary Kay has (legal) options to deal with it. It is their choice obviously, but they are not “bad” or “evil” for deciding to enforce THEIR rules.
Regardless, I would like to again extend a warm welcome to you and I hope that you find this a good place to actually discuss all views of the various situations that one encounters in Mary Kay!
Welcome.
I have a question. Not sure if anyone here can answer, but any insight would be good.
ReplyDeleteThere are some companies that will only authorize the sale of their products through "authorized dealers" or something similar. Perhaps MKC is going to pursue this avenue?
As far as "bashing PT" -
ReplyDeletePT does not allow comments that are favoring MK. There are those of us who have been banned from PT simply for pointing out that MKC is not the antichrist (metaphorically speaking).
So this blog is the only place where we can present the arguments that we would post on PT, if we were allowed to.
Another concern, is that some of the products on that site are way out dated and past their shelf life, I coud see a person ordering a product that has "turned" and being totally turned off to all of Mary Kay. And because of where they bought it, it is not covered by the 100% satisfaction guarentee.
ReplyDeleteThey will think poorly of MK not of top, ebay, etc..
And as old as a few of the items were that I saw, all I could think of was...eeewwwwuuuuuu!!!!!
Does anyone here think that the lawsuit would "go away" if the Webers simply shut down the ToP site?
ReplyDeleteif the Webers are making millions on the site, I don't think it will just go away. I think if it is that profitable for them, they would put up a good fight before they said goodbye to that type of money.
ReplyDeleteAnd... when I address an issue off PT, I am not bashing them, I am trying to show the other side of the story (so to speak) since we are not allowed to do it on PT. If you are not immediately banned, your comment is deleted.
ReplyDeleteOne issue I have now, is they keep accussing Mary Kay of not ever correcting wrong doings, but they were mad when MK terminate Robin after multiple warnings and now they want to protect consultants and the Company name and they are still complaining and this could mean terminating consultants that are selling to TOP (so they would be cutting unethical consultants) and they are still complaining...
so if Mk doesn't do anything they are bad...... but if they try to correct something then they are bad too. Wow, guess they want it both ways.
Honestly, reps buying from TOP and even selling to TOP shouldn't worry. It's not about them. At the most, they'd get a letter from corp advising not to do that anymore. PT just turned it around to make existing consultants nervous.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that TOP is now a main competitor against MK corp. That's really what this is about. They were fine while on eBay, but as soon as they got greedy and started competing against MK corp, they needed to be stopped. If not, they will end up replacing MK corp online.
PT is so funny that all of those women say how great their lives are now that they aren't in MK. If it is so great, why do they sit on that site all day reminising about their horrid MK days? Tracy is so great while she rakes in the bucks from advertising on PT. She's using them to make money just like MK did.
I have MAJOR problems with inventory liquidators such of ToP. IMO they are the lowest of the low. The slimiest of the bottom feeders. IMO.
ReplyDeleteI agree with MK4Me, "Secondly, if they want to say how MK is such a preditor, what would you consider the Webers, if they are offering only 1/2 of what individuals have paid for something and then bragging about the millions of dollars they are making. Is this not exploiting, the ones they already feel have been exploited?"
Exactly. Exploiting. And, dare I say, manipulating.
MK4Me again, "Third point, I find it fascinating that while many of the posters could not read anything while in Mary Kay that would have helped them not end up in a financial mess - now they will sit and read a 70 page lawsuit."
Again - Exactly!
I say HOORAY for MK, Inc. for filing the lawsuit! I hope they win BIG!
Keep messin' around with bear cubs, and Momma bear is gonna come along and put a major hurtin' on ya!
How naive. To think that MKC is doing this for the IBCs. Please.
ReplyDeleteHere's their problem: someone is making money off of their product and they aren't getting a cut. MK is a business. They don't want to leave money on the table. It's very simple. People are taking this so personally and it has nothing to do with people or emotions. It's business as usual.
bankers,
ReplyDeletethanks for stopping by and leaving your thoughts.
I don't often get to greet new commentators this quickly, but I had to tell you that I almost deleted your post. I always see new posts in my email before I see them on the site. When I saw yours, the first thing I saw was your screen name "bankers do it better". I seriously thought you were a spammer that was offering a way to "male enhancement" or some other means for bankers to "do it" better! Which obviously would not be a good fit for this site.
Regarding you comment, thanks for bringing up an interesting point, but I think that you are the one that is naive.
Mary Kay is not suing so that they can "get a cut" of the liquidator's sales. These are all products that have already been purchased from Mary Kay at some point. They already made their money on these products, they already paid out any commissions due, and they actually (according to your 'simple' equation) would be benefiting from these liquidators by avoiding paying the 90% back to any consultant that returns her product.
Whether one feels that it is right or wrong for a corporation to enforce their rules about distribution of their product is really fairly irrelevant.
Their motives in this are fairly irrelevant.
They have the right to run their business how they want. If someone tries to interfere with their business model, and they have set themselves up to legally protect that model, then why shouldn't they?
Their business model is that their IBC's distribute their product for them to individual clients which allows for an intimate sales experience. Something that is sadly lacking in todays society, but obviously is still enjoyed by some (if not many). If they feel that liquidators are interfering with their IBC's ability to distribute in this manner, they ARE doing IBC's a favor by shutting it down. Even if some of the perpetrators of the problem were once IBC's themselves.
Now you did make one point that was not naive. This IS just business. They do not hate the liquidators, they are not "out for blood", they are just defending their business model - which in this case means defending their consultants.
Again thanks for dropping in, and I hope this cleared up the picture a little bit.
IMO it's really very basic. It IS in the financial interests of MKC for the IBC's to sell the product. When the IBCs sell product, they buy more. Thus MKC makes MORE profit. Naturally.
ReplyDeleteIMO it IS financially logical for MKC to take this step. And IMO it IS MKC (Momma Bear) defending her cubs (IBCs).
Dave, your worded it all very well.
bankers do it better said...
ReplyDeleteHow naive. To think that MKC is doing this for the IBCs. Please.
..let's think about this for a minute, I as a consultant, orders my product from MK at wholesale, I sell it at retail, I have the product replacement available thru MK to keep clients happy, the Company produces the catalogues I use, does research and development on the products I sell, so without Mary Kay, I would not have my business.
Mary Kay is a business, businesses need to make money to stay in business, so in the long run anything they can do to stay in business and stay profitable DOES help the consultants. Period.
May 12, 9:16, MK4Me wrote, "Now my question, why would one want to spend that much money for a minute of recognition?
ReplyDeleteWhy would someone even want to go thru all this just to sell product they purchased and loose more money?
Did you think it is just a couple of bad apples that do this, or do you think it is alot of them?
I must be really naive because reading that shocked me, but also really made me sad that people can be that mentally disturbed that they would go to levels like this to appear as something they are not.
I just think more examples like this show even more it isn't MK's style of business that doesn't work.
What doesn't work is when people try cheating, and their cheating hurts not only them but also us."
I agree with all of this, MK4Me. Those who are that mentally disturbed that they would go to those lengths for recognition need professional help. I don't believe it is anything that director can "counsel" them on at all. A director is a director, not a counselor, therapist, or doctor.
As for those that cheat, well, I guess that's a character flaw and not something that a director can fix, nor is it something that MK caused.
Some MK people do reinvest all of their retail sales into their inventory and may thus be on the Court of Personal Sales. Maybe they didn't actually make a profit, or just a small profit. That would be her choice. And this is NOT cheating.
I whole heartedly agree with you, MK4Me, too, that it is not MK's style of business that does not work. It's the cheating that does not work. Sooner or later the cheating will catch up with them.
Unless hubby is rich, and she's got an endless supply of money.....Buy a yacht, or buy a bunch of MK stuff...... :)
First of all - thank you for your voice! I'm a consultant in my 20s, and love technology. I wandered onto PT in the past, while looking for sites, such as unitnet or other pink services. MUCH to my dismay, it was a MK bashing party. So sad to me. Because most of what they experienced, I believe, has much to do with the personal integrity and common sense of the consultant. You can't change what happens to you, but you have control over how you react to it.
ReplyDeleteFrom PT, I wandered to the pinklighthouse, thinking it would be more balanced, but no. Again, extremely negative. What upset me more than anything was that anything I rationally, even politely, attemptted to voice an opinion on (on either site) was immediately and in most cases, viciously, attacked. It almost seemed hopeless to ever visit the site to talk through it rationally. But I hate feeling helpless. How can I NOT defend a company I love so much and has truly changed my life in so many positive ways? THANK YOU for being open and honest and looking for the truth. And admitting it if the truth is positive.
Even further upsetting for me hit a little closer to home. I full heartedly believe in the Mary Kay opportunity. Every company has issues. But I still fully believe in Mary Kay. It's an opportunity that I think my sister would very much benefit from. I shared the opportunity with her about a year ago. She was going to sleep on it, and found the PT site in the mean time. The next day, she had many concerns about MK and decided against becoming a consultant. On the bright side, she told me that if I ever became a director, she would again take it into consideration. Almost there ;)
OK - mk4me, I deeply hope that those who liquidate and "cheat" their way to recognition are few and far between. But I seriously considered it at one point myself. I could see why people would use ebay or TOP, and thought to myself, "well, I'm 'selling' it. What would it hurt?" But it truly comes down to the person. I decided against it. Once I understood that it was against my contract, of course I wouldn't sell on the internet in that manner. But I did consider it. My sister is a huge ebayer and I even considered selling some of my older products to her and having her sell it for me. Isn't that terrible? The thing is that the reason I've considered it in the past was because I wasn't "getting" my business. I didn't understand the numbers and how many people I need to talk with in order to book enough classes to see enough people to sell enough product to meet my goals. But I have a GREAT director that allows me to be so real with her. We've talked through so much stuff. And she's shown me some amazing ways to meet women, to book classes, to close sales, to recruit team members, to effectively follow up, to offer awesome customer service. She's even given me some great ideas on what I can do with product that I know I've had on my shelves for awhile, but is still good. And I LOVE her for it! I have HOPE in my business and I KNOW I will be a NSD someday. Because the things she's suggested to me are WORKING because I've committed to being a great student and have put these ideas into action. Thoughts of selling on ebay or on the internet through whatever means do not enter my mind anymore. And I truly believe it's because of my personal integrity and choice to NOT do it, as well as being teachable and choose to become a master at ever aspect of my business so that I am successful. I honestly don't know where I would be without my director. And it puts a fire in my belly to be that kind of director to my team. If you're unsure if you have anyone in your unit who has ever considered such things ... I would say there are probably a few. I would suggest opening up the door to conversation and allow your consultants to open up and be truly honest with you. Don't be dismayed if they have considered - or even done it - if they are anything like me, it was probably because they were desperate and are hungry to become masters at their business. They just don't see how it's done.
Quick note about the lawsuit - I read the document. To my understanding, it appears that MK is claiming that TOP actively solicitated current IBCs for product they could sell on TOP. And again to my understanding, it appears that the IBCs who chose to sell product to them knew the intentions of the sale. I hope that helps.
I did send an email to legal to ask them about the posibility to legalize selling on Ebay - strictly for use by current consultants. The thing is - we have an awesome website at mk.com . What I personally wish we could develop is a way for consultants to effectively advertise themselves on the web - whether having some kind of ad on ebay or facebook or myspace or whatever forum, pointing towards our already awesome mk site. I just want to utilize this great resource and let people know I have a presence at mk.com . At this time, there is no appropriate way to advertise on the internet except through our website. Legally. And I'm ultimately OK with that until MK finds a way for us to do that. ....if they ever do.
Thanks again for making this a welcoming place for real discussions about MK! I think it's so great that if there is something negative to say about the company (and there will always be something in every company), we can openly talk about it and hopefully come to positive resolutions.
andihart, WELCOME, only have a few mintues right now but just wanted to say thank you for finding us and make sure you post often.
ReplyDeleteI must applaud you and also point out that in your posting you pointed out what many of us continue to say...
By your own words, you admitted you had thought about (were tempted) to sell some products on ebay, etc.. because it may have helped you to acheive your goal) BUT the point is you MADE THE DECISION NOT TO!! (Kudos to you for that ) - You had a choice and you followed your conscious.
now, on the flip side had you somehow managed to shut down your "good angel", and you had finished, I think you (a person of integrity) would not have even felt good about getting the prize or recognition for it because you would have felt like a fraud, and that would have started a nasty downward spiral, with your self-esteem dropping every time you made another poor choice.
And that is our point, everyone has choices or temptations, if you make the wrong choice, aplogize to yourself and to the others you have affected and move on and don't make the mistake again. Just don't stand there and start blaming everyone else.
Hope this site helps you to continue to be succesful in your Mary Kay Biz!