Sunday, June 8, 2008

Mary Kay is a bridge

I would like to take a moment to discuss an illustration that was left in the comments section of this blog recently. I find illustrations to be an excellent way to convey to others the way you see certain things.

As such, when I read the following illustration, I had an insight into where our friend ‘deleted’ is coming from and why he is so insistent and determined to tell everyone about the evil he sees. Whether his motive is pure and simply uninformed or devious and Machiavellian is yet to be determined, but we can at least examine the incorrect perspective he has that leads him to post such bizarre and unwarranted warnings.

What follows is his illustration, followed by a response from me that should help explain why his perspective is flawed. I believe that the picture this illustration will paint does such a good job of explaining the nature of the disagreement between the pro-mk’ers and the anti-mk’ers and everyone in between that I will probably use this post as a starting point for people who have just stumbled upon this site.

So, grab something cozy to drink, snuggle up with your laptop and allow us to tell you a tale. A tale about a bridge – and whether or not that bridge exists!

Deleted (a commentator on this blog) said,

Imagine for a moment you’re driving down the road in the country at about 55 or 60 miles an hour. Near a bend in the road you notice some guy along the side of the road jumping up and down, waiving his arms and yelling at you. You can’t make out what he is yelling but he is unusually animated, seems overly excited, and he’s (you surmise) staring at you and your kids. The exasperated exclamation on his face is unmistakable. Your self-talk kicks into gear and you begin to wonder, “Is this guy maybe a mental health patient who has been off his medication”? Before you know anything more, your survival instincts prompt you to prepare to protect yourself from this person who could present an unknown level of danger to you and your family. Your natural survival instincts allow you to strongly consider the likelihood this raving, loud, harsh toned person on the side of the road is a nut you should avoid and, if possible, ignore. He’s obviously upset about something and he looks as though he has a negative attitude. Who has time for negative raving lunatics?

The good news (hopefully) is you’ve slowed down enough to at least stare at the raving nut on the side of the road. And as you round the bend in the road you see the bridge over the ravine is out. You have just enough time to throw your vehicle into a skid before driving off the cliff. I’m the raving nut on the side of the road. I’m trying to warm as many as possible about the danger just ahead.

Perhaps you’ve noticed, I’m not the only raving nut on the side of the road. There are so many of us; we all recently climbed out of the ravine. Our wreckage is strewn over the side of the cliff. The vast majority of us simply go home after crashing but many of us run back to the road and try to warn other drivers.

However interesting it may seem, I’m still astonished at the number of drivers who ignore our ranting and actually speed up when they see the bridge is out. These drivers face forward with both hands on the wheel. White knuckled and with a stark sense of resolute commitment on their face, they drive off the cliff muttering “...if I just beeeelieve in my dreams...” This would be even more astonishing if those of us along the road watching these crashes didn’t remember we too experienced this same delusional phenomena.


I find your illustration to be more accurate than perhaps you intended it to be. You say that any analogy will lose its effectiveness when pushed to an extreme. I say that as long as the analogy has clearly defined elements that correspond accurately with the real life element they are describing than the analogy will stand on its own.

I would like to seize on this opportunity to point out exactly what those of us on this blog have been trying to explain to you about the difference between your point of view regarding Mary Kay and the reality of the “big picture”.

As some people have pointed out, your illustration is flawed. If the bridge in this illustration represents Mary Kay and the cliff is financial ruin then the cliff is a danger to all people that are alive and there are many bridges that offer varying levels of safe or risky passage to financial security. (In fact, many people will elect to cross over multiple bridges in hopes of reaching various ‘higher’ or ‘better’ levels of financial achievement.) On the “safe” end of the spectrum, the bridge may be a 9-5 minimum wage job that, although not glamorous (and certainly not able to create a luxurious lifestyle), is at least a guaranteed way to survive. The “downside” of this bridge is that it may never reach “the other side”; you may spend your entire life “on the bridge”. On the “risky” end of the spectrum, the bridge may be moving to Hollywood to be an actor, or Nashville to be a famous country singer. Without a doubt, starting a business (be it a franchise or a unique entrepreneurial endeavor) is on the “high risk” side of the spectrum. This of course would include Mary Kay.

Now, let’s examine the “lunatic”. In your illustration, the “lunatic” is you. You make the point that the lunatic is justified in his actions by the fact that he is warning people of impending doom. But is doom really unavoidable? Is the bridge really gone? Is the lunatic still a “hero” if he is lying about the state of the bridge?

Now pay attention, because this is where our philosophies diverge. I believe that the Mary Kay “bridge” is not out. It is what could be called a “high risk” bridge that some unscrupulous individuals in Mary Kay represent as being a “safe” bridge in hopes of profiting off the naïveté of their victims. The impending doom of which you speak results from something other than the cause you cite, and is not guaranteed as you would have passing motorists believe. First, the bridge is not in fact “out”. The bridge is still there. However, the bridge warrants an extra level of caution. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Mary Kay bridge (like other entrepreneurial endeavors) requires that one park the car and start off on foot. The phrase “learn to walk before you run” is a fairly good descriptor here. Interestingly, there are signs on this bridge. Very clearly written instructions that describe the manner in which safe (or at least safer) crossing may be achieved. (These are often spoken of here – InTouch, the Consultant Agreement, etc.) The reason that many are “driving into the ravine” is that they fail to read the instructions. The reason they fail to read the instructions (in some cases) is that they are misled to believe that it is an easy bridge to cross and reading the instructions is unnecessary. “Just trust me” some seem to suggest, “If you only do this, you will be successful.”

It is for this reason, that there even needs to be someone offering a warning.

Let’s put another character out on the road. Me. Or, more accurately, us. With this blog. I am standing on the other side of the road, in the shoulder, almost in the lane of oncoming traffic with both hands in the air signaling motorists to stop so that I can talk to them. I am making eye contact with as many drivers as I can. The ones that pull over to find out what is going on are told, “The bridge ahead has a few risks you should know about.” My presence there would not be necessary if there weren’t people sending these drivers down the road with the impression that crossing the “financial ruin” pit via the Mary Kay bridge guarantees safety or that they can do it at full speed.

So, now we have a very crowded roadway.

There are people telling the motorists, “Go full speed!!! Just Beee- lieeeve!!!” There are those (like you) saying, “Don’t even try. The bridge is out. There is no chance that you will ever make it.” (Some in this category also add things like, “The clothes they make you wear are ridiculous. The prizes are dumb. Why would you want to cross THAT bridge if you have to wear THAT?”.) And then there are those (on this blog and elsewhere) saying, “Hold on a second. We are talking about a business opportunity here. There are risks involved and your best bet is to start small and slow. Don’t quit your day job. Don’t buy thousands of dollars of inventory that you may or may not be able to sell. And for crying out loud, read the instructions and don’t believe everything you are told. But by all means, if you want a shot at creating something that you can be proud of, here is a great way to do it.”

Now the question becomes, “Who is right?”

We can plainly see from the testimonies on Pink Truth (and even some who have come here and told their story) that the “go full speed, just beeeelieeeeve!” folks are wrong – and causing people misery “in fifty forms”. The so called “lunatic(s)” that say no one can make it are proved wrong by the fact that there are so many that are making it. Some of them are on this site. So if some people ARE making it, and some people ARE NOT making it, it seems that the one saying, “some people WILL make it and some WILL NOT make it” is the one that has it right. I wish that everyone who enticed someone to join Mary Kay was straightforward with their description. I wish that no one would lie and say that making money with Mary Kay is as easy as buying lots of product and “believing”. But that will never be the case. Dishonest people will be dishonest whether they are selling cosmetics or train parts or nuclear weapons. No industry, no company, no place on earth is immune from the devastation that dishonest people bring to the table.

This leads me to the question I have for ‘deleted’ and those on Pink Truth is, “Why do YOU choose to be dishonest in your approach of warning people?” Do you not realize people don’t consider you a lunatic because you are warning them, but because your warning is deceitful? You tell them, “The bridge is out”, then they go up to where the bridge is and come back and say, “No, the bridge is still there”. When they (we) try to inform you that you are wrong, that there is a bridge, and that there are people making it to the other side you continue to tell us that WE are the crazy ones. You insist that “there is no bridge” and “the only thing keeping us from realizing that there is no bridge is lack of experience”. We (they) take a look at the bridge, look back at you, back at the bridge, back at you and say something like, “You mean that bridge? That bridge that we are both looking at… is… not there?” You are either delusional and truly believe that there is no bridge or you have some ulterior motive, some hidden agenda that leads you to intentionally deceive people. I genuinely wonder which one is fueling this passionate deception.

Regardless, from this point, there is an internal conflict. On the one hand, we want to walk you over to the bridge. Point out the people that are at various points on the bridge. Show you the instructions that are posted. Ask you where you went off the bridge so that we can adjust the instructions to help those coming behind you avoid making the same mistake you made. On the other hand, every time we try to do this, you make cryptic, sarcastic statements that have nothing to do with the bridge, nothing to do with us and then start screaming at the people approaching the bridge again. At some point, we have to just let you believe that there is no bridge or resign ourselves to allowing you to spread your variety of deceptive manipulation. And, since there are some people that are lying about how perfectly safe and secure the bridge is, and people (like you) that are lying about there being no bridge, we must resume our task of explaining the whole mess to people that are looking at a very crowded road and saying, “What the heck is going on here?”

As long as you come and talk to us, we will try to point out that THERE IS A BRIDGE and try to get you to come see it for yourself. We will keep asking you to tell us where you went wrong, what caused your dilemma, in hopes of helping others not make the same mistake. We will not join you in telling people there is no bridge. We will not join the “JUST BEEEE-LIEEEEEVE” types in sending people into a frightening spiral of racking up debt to earn undeserved recognition either. We will continue to slow people down, point out the instructions and try our best to paint a more realistic picture of what the bridge will be like so that they can choose for themselves whether this opportunity is a match for them or not.

Now some will say, “If the Mary Kay bridge is so risky and fraught with danger, shouldn’t everyone avoid it?” I submit to those of you that feel that way that you should make up your own mind and let everyone else make up their mind about that. Life is exactly what you make of it. If you like the idea of stepping out and taking a risk on something like this, and you have the opportunity, and you really like the products – go for it. You can plainly see that the reward is worth the risk. But take heed. There are many who don’t make it. Be prepared to work hard, pour your blood, sweat and tears into this and come to realize that “it just doesn’t work” for you. But, whether you choose to take the bridge, or choose to look for another bridge that is better suited to your talents and passions, please don’t tell someone else that they will not make it. Don’t lie and say “there is no bridge, you will never make it”. Just find something that does work for you and do that with all your heart. If you truly want to save people from coming to the same fate you came to, join US in telling them the truth. Speak openly and honestly about the specific lies that were told to you, the specific mistakes that you made and so add to the testimony of “dos” and “don’ts” that make up the “big picture” that we are trying to present here.

Ok, enough about this illustration from me. What do all of you think of “the bridge” that Mary Kay represents? Is it safe? Should people avoid it? Should they “face forward with both hands on the wheel, white knuckled and with a stark sense of resolute commitment on their face”, floor it? If you recommend that they proceed, what caution would you offer? What hazards are personally important enough to you that you would like to point them out? Here is YOUR chance to describe how you see Mary Kay! Please don’t be shy!


  1. I think blessed, I mean "deleted" is a loon.

  2. anon,

    methinks he prefers "lunatic". we should be careful not to be so informal and casual!



    please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, use a name so that we can identify you from the other anonymous users here.

    It really is easy. Just click the circle that says "name/url" and enter a nickname of some sort there.

    OR at the very least, "sign" your comment with your nickname.

    Whether I agree with a commentator or not, I find it cowardly to not present yourself in the same way every time you comment.

    In other words, for all anyone knows, it could have been ME or even DELETED himself that just posted that. Please avoid that confusion in the future.


  3. A few weeks ago, Tracy et al were crowing about being able to get a counter-argument into a news article (press release) about a new NSD. The NSD happened to be hispanic, and spoke very little english.

    One of the commenters stated that the NSD must be in the US illegally, and that since all consultants/directors/NSDs are independent contractors, MK Inc uses that to their advantage because by law they are not required to check the immigration status of the sales force.

    The commenter when on to state that she knew that the NSD was here illegally because she had worked for 10 years in workplace compliance for the INS.

    The next day, the NY Times had an article about a Customs Inspector on the US-Mexico border being convicted for taking bribes. The NYT noted that other INS (or is it USCIS now) personnel had similarly been caught and convicted for accepting bribes.

    What's this have to do with Deleted (and other PT'ers) and their love for analogies?

    One of the favorite PT justifications for closing down MK is that there's too much of an enticement to consultants to buy product just to receive recognition/prizes, and that it's too much of an enticement to directors to encourage large wholesale orders because wholesale orders form the basis for a director's commission. They argue that since some consultants and directors cannot control themselves, leading to financial problems, then MK as the root of the problem must be eliminated.

    By this reasoning, the Border Patrol and Customs Service must be eliminated, because there are such large inducements to accept bribes, particularly for allowing drugs and illegal aliens into the US. Because some agents and inspectors allowed their greed to overcome their ethics, then by PT logic, the employer that put those people into positions that allowed their ethics to be compromised must be shut down.

    Unfortunately for Tracy & PT, the law enforcement and legal community does not follow that philosophy, unless it can be proven that the employer knowingly and willingly encouraged such actions.

    Deleted assumes that all consultants and directors are lemmings, blindly following each other over the cliff. Fortunately, most of us are human, and use our head for something more than crumpling beer cans.

  4. David and MKHonesty, you guys are so very WORDY. My eyes cross reading your comments that go on and on and on. Blessed goes on and on, as well, but at least he's entertaining. I love that loon. He makes perfect sense to me since I was introduced to the same MK that he apparently was. Unless you've been manipulated by someone you trusted I don't think you can fully understand where we are coming from.

    Now, I cannot say what is right or wrong for a person. Should they join, should they run away, screaming into the night, careful not to bump into one of the lunetics trying to ward them off the bridge that may or may not exist. Everyone is different. Everyone's needs are different. I think it is wonderful that Blessed is so outspoken about his experience. That way someone who doesn't know about MK can ask their director the right questions and know not to believe every word she says. I also like MK4ME since she sounds like she knows what she is doing. She doesn't say you can make executive income working part time hours. She admits that she does not. And she is very forthcoming that it takes years to build up this business. She doesn't try to hide the negative about this company. And there is negative about EVERY business, but I have haerd some MKers say MKC is perfect, no flaws, a company from God. So I think it is wonderful to show both sides so a newbie knows what to expect, what not to do.

    Here's to Blessed for having such a loud voice and here's to MK4ME for having a nice voice of reason. And Dave and MKHonesty, it seems I am now almost as wordy as you guys and no where near as entertaining as blessed, either. :)

  5. Deleted, AKA: LoonJune 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM


    You have repeatedly provided supportive comments about the posts I’ve made. I don’t know that I’ve ever thanked you.

    Thank you Judi. I hope you’re well and that any damage caused to you or your family by the MK curse is well behind you.


    You’re a very eloquent writer. I look forward to the day you complete the transition from supporter of the MK farce to that of a bright buoy guiding others lost in dangerous waters out of a foggy mess. I think you may be well on the way, however unwilling you are now to admit such a transition could even be occurring.

    I find it interesting, yet somewhat predictable, that you and like minded posters here would suggest the bridge referred to in my analogy is, in fact, still there. With your purported clarification re the bridge, my mind’s eye harkens back to the many now laying trapped in the wreckage at the bottom of the ravine. Look, you can see them yourself (maybe you know some of them), as the smoke rises from their demolished vehicles (bank accounts, marriages, credit ratings, etc.). Paradoxically, many in the wreckage at the bottom of the ravine are still absolutely sure the bridge exists and sure they can “make it” if they just do things right. Some aren't yet fully aware they've just driven off a cliff.

    I challenge anyone to find examples at seminar this year of the kind of thinking Dave mentioned. Tell me who walks across stage and tells you from the podium to proceed with caution because this can be a risky business proposition. Oh please! I’ve heard so much to the contrary in the past during MK sanctioned events. I recall speakers at MK sanctioned events actually coaching new IBCs to rid themselves of contingency plans; “(I paraphrase) anything to fall back on is merely an excuse to fail,” the MK trainers would say.

    The misuse of faith, misuse of positions of trust, and outright misrepresentations make for some interesting stories. The debate about whether the problems center around a select number of unscrupulous directors or MK Corporate is, I believe, largely a waste of time. It’s both, but more so the latter. Now, boy-oh-boy, that ought to just shock ya! I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read posts from hard-core pro-MK folks glorifying Mary Kay Cosmetics Corporate! Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn’t just kneel at the Mary Kay Corporate Alter, light a candle and bless myself.

    Dave, maybe it would be profitable for me if we were to actually meet. I’ve got a great game I want you to play. It’s called three card monte. Now just remember to pay attention and keep your eye on the Queen. You’re sure to do well if you just do it right, have faith and make a commitment to win. One day you could make enough at this game to allow your spouse to retire! It could happen! ...OK, sorry. I can’t do that to ya Dave. Ya see, the fact is, the vast majority of all the people I get to play three card monte will lose. With few exceptions, everyone loses by design. The surest way to win this game, the surest way to come out ahead, is to simply not play.

    And that, I believe, is the bottom line. Regardless of how scrupulous or unscrupulous some IBCs/Directors may be, the MK MLM pyramid scheme will predictably cause unsuspecting women and their families to be churned through this hoax at phenomenal rates. And all by design. Enriching women’s lives? Gi’me a break! The MK MLM treats women like cannon fodder, expendable cannon fodder (please forgive my redundancy).


    You suggest (if I understand you) MK Corporate is to IBCs what ICE administrators are to their agents: purposefully, each exposing their representatives to risk of enlisting in unsavory practices. Perhaps so.

    The difference is ICE trains agents to avoid not only impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety. MKC, by contrast, surreptitiously encourages and benefits financially from much of the objectionable behavior repeatedly presented by some in its “independent” sales force. Additionally, while ICE administrators do aggressively seek to stem inappropriate acts among their ranks, MKC does little more than provide an occasional reeling-in (if even that). MKC’s gestures in this regard are, I believe, enacted more to promote plausible denial ability than actual positive change. After all, if MKC were to actually seriously attack the deceptive practices among its ranks, they’d be risking possible financial loss. Why not just continue to bilk tens of thousands of women per year? It’s more profitable. If MKC was, in fact, interested in promoting positive business practices (rather than a trail of victims) they’d adopt parts of the FTC proposed business opportunity regulations long before any of them become enacted regulations. Not gonna happen though. It seems the, “It’s them (IBCs and Directors), not us(MKC),” spiel is working way too well for now. And why shouldn’t this spiel work for MKC? They’ve got so many water carriers for the hoax it’s bound to fool some of the women, some of the time (at least until they read and experience a bit more).

    AKA: Loon

  6. The "bridge" is either in or out. The "raving lunatic" on the side of the road is either delusional or a life saver. Stopping or slowing your car to verify either of these possibilities is wise and prudent.

  7. Deleted,

    First of all, I note that you are still not answering the questions I asked.

    Fine. I didn't really expect you to anyway.

    That said -

    I have several acquaintances that are "conspiracy theorists". I keep company with them because I find their thoughts interesting.

    The trouble with all good conspiracy theories including yours is that those 'gosh darn evil people' perpetrating the conspiracy - whether its the government officials that orchestrated 9/11, the NASA folks that staged the moon landing, or the MK corporate chiefs and NSD's that have constructed this elaborate scheme you envision - are really good at hiding the evidence that they are doing these unthinkable things. Usually because the free press, the liberal media, and everyone else in the world is either being bribed, or unwittingly deluded to tell lies and cover up the big mysterious TRUTH.

    You need evidence friend.

    Else I could say,

    Don't bother getting a cell phone - Dealing with ALL cell phone companies is like playing three card monte. The only way to not get ripped off is to never get a cell phone


    Wedding Photographers are ALL the same. Paying someone to photograph your wedding is the same thing as playing three card monte.


    Changing your oil is a scam perpetrated by the oil industry - just leave your oil the way it is. Your car will run fine - why even give your money to these "snake oil salesmen"?

    Do I need to go on?

    You are acting very similar to people who point out how easy it is to use a green screen and photoshop to make it look like someone is on the moon and then make a huge leap to say, "see, it CAN be done, therefore it MUST have been done" Except, in your case, you are saying, "see there are people that misuse faith and positions of trust, therefore it must be the entire organization that is doing it". Except that:

    1. You are not even telling us what was said to you that was so abusive and misleading, so your "see, look" is basically based on hearsay.

    2. You have to create a world where no one is doing well in Mary Kay and ALL are ruined in order for your conspiracy theory to work - so you refuse to acknowledge or even consider the fact that this is just a business. A manufacturer with a unique way of distributing their product. Some people will succeed, some will fail, and some will try to 'work the system' so that they can 'get something for nothing'. Unfortunately (it seems), you fell victim to the latter.

    Again - we are sorry that happened to you.

  8. So then, le’me see if I’ve got this right. The liberal media is selling make up to unsuspecting wedding photographers who are on their cell phones while their oil is being changed? I think you’ve left me in the dust. Maybe us loons can be expected to be usually left in the dust, right?

    I hope you and your wife are well. Regardless of what I may think of MK cosmetics, I feel confident you and your wife will most likely not be driving off any cliff, I hope.


  9. d,

    I believe I have a new name for you. Since you seem to be fond of new names, hopefully this one will stick.

    I dub thee, Alonso Quixano.

    I must wonder though, "does that makes me Sancho Panza?"

  10. Instead of posting as anonymous, I'll post as x.

  11. that'll do x, that'll do.


  12. Deleted,

    Please provide example(s) where MK Inc "surreptitiously encourages and benefits financially from much of the objectionable behavior repeatedly presented by some in its “independent” sales force."

    Oh , that's right, it's surreptitious, so we can't see it. You must love the the 9-11 Truthers. (for those of you who don't know the reference, these are people who believe that either (a) the Bush admin secretly planted explosives and blew up the World Trade Center, or (b) the Bush admin knew that the hijacking was going to happen and intentionally did nothing to stop it.)

    As you say, ICE "trains agents to avoid not only impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety." and yet they still have personnel who accept bribes. So does the IRS, police, the bar association, accounting firms, etc., and they still have individuals that are unethical or actually commit illegal acts. Yet, no one suggests that we eliminate the police, lawyers, IRS (well, I like the Fair Tax idea). In PT land, only MK Inc is expected to ferret out unethical or illegal acts by the sales force.

    By your own statement, MK Inc does. They terminate directors and consultants. However, in PT Land, former consultants who were selling on the internet and then terminated are celebrities, especially if they set up their own product clearing house that buys product from consultant for 20 cents on the dollar.

    I firmly believe that the ex-directors on PT who continue to hide behind screen names do so because they were actually terminated by MK Inc. What better a place for them to hang out and try to exact their revenge. I believe that they think that they were unfairly "singled out" because they believed that they were only doing what everyone else was doing, without any basis in fact beyond their own limited purview. Instead of reporting unethical or illegal behaviour by their senior directors or NSDs, such as placing orders for terminated consultants or submitting agreements for people without their knowledge or permission, they chose to throw their conscience in the closet and follow the pack, believing that the end justified the means.

    I disagree with Dave. The Mary Kay opportunity is not "high risk". Yes, the success of a director is very much dependent on the performance of her unit members, but please name me a business where the success of the owner, manager or executive is not dependent on the people beneath her. The leader must motivate, inspire and train her team, whether it's a MK unit, a Naval unit, or a civilian corporation. A NSD once described a director's position as "leading a volunteer army". Yes, in a civilian position, the leader has the ultimate lever, the threat to terminate a poorly performing employee. In the Navy, a leader can take disciplinary actions. Believe me, a leader, whether a CO or a Division Officer, who resorts to constant discipline quickly finds him/herself in a downward spiral. In MK, the director does not have to worry about this issue, because a poorly performing consultant will terminate herself. Just like the MK Director, the owner/executive will now have to replace that person, if this was a vital position that effects the bottom line. In PT Land, the common complaint is that a director always has to replace people. Congratulations, welcome to the real world.

    Another common complaint is that the consultant has been sold a bill of goods by the director, just to get her to do an order. While it's possible, I submit that the complaints from a consultant who did the $3,000 order and then did nothing is hearing from only one side. In my wife's unit, a consultant enthusiastically did a $3,000 wholesale order a few months ago, and now she is in her first month of inactive status. Has she done a return? No. Has she asked the company for the return paperwork? Yes. Did my wife's actions lead to this consultant's apparent lack of success. I don't see how. This consultant is out of town. My wife traveled to her city, took her to her first meeting with a very strong director, took the time to go through everything in her starter kit, and made sure she knew where to find training materials on both InTouch and the unit newsletter site. My wife did everything that could be expected, short of moving in with the new consultant, and the consultant has done very little. Actually, we don't know what this consultant is doing, because she does not complete weekly accomplishment sheets.

    So please explain how this consultant's performance is a result of my wife's actions.

  13. MKHonesty,

    You said,

    "What better a place for them to hang out and try to exact their revenge. I believe that they think that they were unfairly "singled out" because they believed that they were only doing what everyone else was doing, without any basis in fact beyond their own limited purview. Instead of reporting unethical or illegal behaviour by their senior directors or NSDs, such as placing orders for terminated consultants or submitting agreements for people without their knowledge or permission, they chose to throw their conscience in the closet and follow the pack, believing that the end justified the means."

    Yes, Yes, Yes. Well said.

    Regarding whether or not MK is "high risk" is a question that will change considerable depending on your situation and your definition of risk. I certainly agree with you that it does not need to be high risk - but still, some people, it seems, make it so.

    Oh yeah, you and I must have talked to the same 9/11 Truthers about what "really happened"!

  14. Copied from other post since it seems like the conversation as resumed over here.

    As I read "deleted's" bridge analogy and then skimmed some of the comments... all I can think of is ...

    It is a drawbridge. Most of us know when to slow down (stop ordering products we don't need) and wait for the bridge to return before we cross.

    So the bridge is safe, unless you try to cross it when you shouldn't!

    And anytime you see a drawbridge (there are still a few around, there are always warning signs and usually a gate that comes down to prevent people from driving onto the bridge when they shouldn't, but you will always have those that try to beat the gate instead of waiting to proceed when it is safe. (Those that jump the gate, those that "buy" their way to get the car, the suit, the prize, etc) instead of working for it.

    deleted if you would change your tone and your attitude that MK is evil and can not be done right, and started saying what could happen if you don't abide by the rules, you warnings would be far more effective.

    Become the warning sign, not the man looking like a luniatic. You would be far more effective in helping others.

    Now, I think the analogy is complete with my two cents.

    Have a great Monday and Tuesday everyone!!

    Now I think the analogy is complete!

    I try very hard to be objective when I read any comments, when you read "deleted" comments, it comes across that he is not "warning people of the pitfalls" - he comes across as one can not do K ethically and make money.

    He would be far more effective if he said what went wrong and how you can protect yourself from the pitfalls.

    And supporting pt so strongly only better shows that he only believes in the bad. There are other pro/con sites that will let both opinions (including this site) be heard and THAT is where people will really get the benefit of the messages.

    All of one and all of the other isn't going to work because nothing (except death and taxes) is 100%.

  15. Why did I just get this image of Deleted as Herve Villechaize pointing and yelling, "De Bridge, De Bridge!"?

  16. And so it comes down to this. After so much effort on my part to keep my dwarfism secret, I am (alas) outed! I so embarrassed.


  17. MK4Me, I think your analogy of a drawbridge is perfect!

    Unfortunately, some of us have SD's standing at the gate, holding it open, chanting "JUST BEELIEVE! You can do it! Find a way, make a way! Fake it til you make it! Show up to go up! No stars, no cars! Help the unit!" among other MK "chants".

    Yes, it is the responsiblity of the individual; however, I must agree with Deleted that the ravine is full of those who "crashed" due to the "encouragement" received. Again, I do agree personal responsiblity takes a HUGE role. The people doing the "encouraging" are the ones with "years of experience" and have been "coached" (even by MKC - use of DISC as an example) to overcome objections. These people are there to train and help you - why would you not BEELIEVE what they say? (ANSWER: Because they are making $ off of you!)

    The "standard of practice" in my area at least, is quite deceiving. "You can start for
    $ 100" FALSE Starter kit, postage, tax around $ 115 Training material $ 20. Again, in my area, it is a cardinal sin to discuss or even mention inventory until after the IBC contract is signed ? Why?

    I think anyone considering MK should be well informed of all possibilities so they can monitor their progress and speed on the bridge!

    Deleted - keep waving that flag!

  18. speaking the real truthJune 18, 2008 at 7:20 AM

    Hi Rural. I understand what you are saying, but also must point out that I am not driving off of any bridge blindly. I do not believe in lying and manipulating either. Please understand that there are many of us who are encouraging you to succeed because we want you to succeed. What do I have to gain by a consultant crashing? NOTHING. If you are in this for the long haul, you had better being doing everything that you can to keep your consultants from crashing. I try to warn consultants of bumps or problems that I see for them on the horizon, including ordering too much, spending too much on Section 2, not enough appts., not ready for DIQ/directorship, etc.

    There is nothing wrong with encouraging people, and that is part of the Sales Directors job. The DISC part is very useful in understanding women and how to best work with them. People are different and if they are all treated the same, feelings can get hurt, etc. There is nothing wrong with studying DISC or other personality charts to help you work better with different personalities. I want to help the women in my unit. I want to communicate with them in a way that suits their personality. I want to help them overcome challenges to their success. Knowing DISC helps me to be a better director for them and to relate better to them.

    When talking about the Starter Kit, it is $100. Most people know that when quoted any price, that it will have tax added, and if it is being shipped, they know to add shipping. But, I do try to always qualify that it is $100 plus local tax and $8.95 shipping. What do you mean by $20 training materials? I do not know anything about that.

  19. Thelma, I agree it is every persons choice, and Speaking The Real Truch, I agree that noone should drive blindly.

    I believe everyone is accountable for their own personal actions, but I also believe if your actions are encouraging ? to do ?, you need to have personal resposiblity to encourage "properly" and to point out the potential problems, like you do.

    I realize that all SD want all recruits to succeed, I wish I had one like you who would actually discuss the "bumps or problems" you addressed instead of sending e-mails, "You can still be a star this quarter, order by 6-15!" when you've ordered maybe $ 300 so far. I know it is true, just order $ 1800 & you're a start but $ 1500 in 1 month is just stretching it IMO.

    Our SD has a "training kit" for new consultants - it has several cd's & dvd's in it, plus lots of other material from the SD, copies of scripts, sales ideas, notebook, postcards, etc. Actually for what you get (cd's & dvd's) it's probably cheap, it just runs the cost of the starter kit up.

  20. Wait, Rural, your director charges for her welcome packet? That's absurd. Just had to say it. ;)

    My director does new consultant orientations and makes up binders for the new consultants filled with information. It's FREE. I give me team members a welcome packet that includes their pin, Beauty Books, Look Books (not 10, maybe 3 or 4), sales slips, samples, and maybe a CD by my NSD. It isn't a whole lot. Just a few things so they can get started while waiting for the Starter Kit to arrive. I don't charge them either.

  21. speaking the real truthJune 19, 2008 at 10:36 AM

    WOW, I must be stupid. Not really, but I am shocked that all directors are not providing a MK pin and car decal to their new unit members, plus a welcome packet. If you want to sell them CDs/DVDs that should be a separate option for them, but the actual welcome packet should be FREE! Even better, loan them the CDs/DVDs. There is no need for everyone to have those forever unless they intend to pass them along.

    I do not expect my recruiters to foot the bill for these supplies, I make more money on that recruit than they do!

    Shades, to be honest, I think that you are going overboard, because the things that you are giving them also come in the Starter Kit, which they receive in just a few days. I think that you are being very nice, and very responsible, but that is costing you, and as you build, it will be more expensive. just my option :)

  22. speaking the real truthJune 19, 2008 at 10:38 AM

    Rural, when I send out motivational emails to individuals, advising them of their status, they do not go out to those who are ridiculously far away from a goal. I think it sends the wrong message, that you just want them to order a ton of products, and that you have no sense of their reality. It is a rare case for someone to need to order $1500 wholesale, when they've only ordered $300 wholesale the entire quarter!!!

  23. I feel the same, I have a small Welcome Back and it goes out to every new unit member FREE. With what the Company has, I don't see any need to recreate the wheel and it is silly to overwhelm a new consultant with too much redondant paperwork.

    My belief is KISS
    Keep it Simple Sweetie!

  24. I disagree with the idea to charging a new consultant for a welcome packet. My wife's welcome packet is maybe a dozen pages, 2 CD's, a Ready-Set-Sell brochure, and an order form. If it really costs $20 to produce, then it's likely to be so big that the consultant won't read or listen to half of it!

    That said, complaining that it is false or misleading to state that a Starter Kit is $100, without mentioning tax and shipping, is IMO a whine. Tax is a fact of life, and shipping fees are to be expected. When I go into a store and see a shirt on sale for $14.99, I don't go complain to the manager that the tax was not posted. Nor do I complain about shipping charges when ordering online or special order. In fact, the only thing that I can easily think of where the advertised price includes taxes is gasoline.

    Tell me, Rural, do you complain about the 1/10th of a cent "discount" that is standard on gasoline prices (i.e. $4.259 vs $4.26)?

  25. Hee hee! I have an abundance of Beauty Books and Look Books and Section 2 because a couple of my friends did the buyback and when they quit, they just gave me section 2 stuff! One girl was selling it at a lower price than she paid, but then she just came over one day with 2 on-the-go totes stuffed with STUFF. I take it easy when I don't have much to spare. But, I have tons. :P

  26. MKHonesty,

    I don't complain about DISCOUNTS, but I do complain about gas prices these days! LOL!

    It would be similiar to the clerking ringing up your $ 14.99 shirt adding a folding fee.

    My complaint, and I apologize to all who view that as a cardinal sin, is that in my unit there is a $20 training kit charge.

    As Dave has asked that we be specific, IN MY UNIT, a starter kit does NOT cost $ 100. I agree training material should be provided w/out charge and that additional videos/cd's should be an option but not a requirement, nor an additional fee to the starter kit.


For Further Reading...

This Week On Pink Truth - Click Here
Pros and Cons of Mary Kay - Read or Contribute or Both!
First Post - Why I Started This Blog
The Article I Wrote For (here) (there)
If this is your first visit please leave a comment here. I would love to hear from you!
If you want to email me:
But you are probably better emailing mk4me: