Saturday, June 28, 2008

Nigerian Scams reaches Mary Kay?

The Pink Truth (ahem) "detectives"... (ahem) have uncovered "shocking" news.

Apparently, not only can you secure untold fortunes from Nigerian businessmen that need your help - we have all gotten these emails, haven't we? - now you can also sell your Mary Kay products to Nigerian women for massive profits.

Except, instead of taking this information - and whatever genuine concern it seems to cause - to Mary Kay, they have decided to post about it on their smear blog, Pink Truth. Interestingly, even though most of them claim to be out of Mary Kay, somehow they feel wronged that people are being given the chance to cheat and get ahead in Mary Kay.

Their "evidence" amounts to little more than the ads you can STILL find on their site every day


Like suggesting a boycott on Nigerian Banks because of the emails that made the rounds, Pink Truth members (as they typically do) jump on the bandwagon of blaming the company, directors, and consultants for this behavior. Simultaneously they tell "us" those involved in Mary Kay that "we" should be offended and angered by this wrong.

It isn't until well into the post that we get this comment from 'magenta'

"when i think of nigeria I think of those sleezy email cons that ask you to help them by putting somemoney in an account and they will pay you richly.."


Except, instead of concluding the logical or natural conclusion, - namely that these things happen, anything that CAN be exploited, most likely will - she concludes that:

"Maybe a lot of letters need to go to headquarters...other ruby directors asking if they are gonna allow these foreigners to take all the QUeenie spots......"


I guess what is puzzling to me is that Pink Truth:

1. Finds controversy that they THINK we should care about
2. Make a big fuss about it AS THOUGH it matters to them
3. Suggest that WE should do something about it
4. Conclude that:
A. Mary Kay (the company and the consultants) are not doing anything about it
B. Mary Kay MUST be endorsing it (because of the assumption in A.)
C. Mary Kay is (as deleted suggests here) bad for you BY DESIGN.

Once again, the existence of people trying to (successfully or otherwise) exploit the Mary Kay system, is all the evidence they need to pronounce that Mary Kay is allowing this - which builds into intentionally ignoring this - which builds into encouraging this - which builds into promoting this.

Meanwhile, THEY actually ARE promoting these things DIRECTLY with the ads on their site. I wonder if WE should encourage them to form a protest/boycott against Tracy and infer that the reason they won't do that is because they know they will be banned if they do... oh wait, that is true!

77 comments:

  1. Hmmm, interesting.

    I read the thread over there. I tend to agree that exporting huge volumes to Nigeria is pretty unethical for the ladies working the business the right way.

    I'm just a fair person. I don't like seeing people taken advantage of. It doesn't matter what the level is. I don't like seeing IBCs taking advantage of directors and vice versa. Now this?

    Seriously, if I were an ethical director, I'd be bummed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. flybye64 --

    I have decided I am not going to click on Pink Truth and build their #'s, so I haven't read the article. So I may be misinterpreting your response,but I do have to take exception to the statement"

    "exporting huge volumes to Nigeria is pretty unethical for the ladies working the business the right way".

    Doing anything unethical is NOT working your business the right way!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really don't understand this post on PT. Are consultants selling in Nigeria? And is that a bad thing? I am guessing it is because of all the hullabaloo. But what is going on???

    ReplyDelete
  4. Then you and I agree Itcme. That's what I meant.

    Judi, from what I can "see", there are directors in the Ruby area, Nigerian directors, exporting mass volumes of Mary Kay product to consultants in Nigeria.

    The thing is, Mary Kay doesn't even have a market in Nigeria! Yet, they are literally sending containers of products on ships there. PT is showing (as per Dave's post) URLs of consultants advertising the Mary Kay business opportunity to Nigerians. Also, from what I read, some Ruby unit directors are selling a million dollars (plus) worth of product this way -- so they're winning the Queen's Court, etc.

    Huh! How do like them apples!

    Am I over-reacting? I know IBCs are not allowed to do business in other countries, only director's right? (As per director's traveling to China and India.) But Mary Kay hasn't opened in Africa, yet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry flybye -- Misunderstood you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. speaking the real truthJune 28, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    Believe me, this "situation", whatever it may be, is not going unnoticed, particularly by those in the Ruby Seminar Division. There are some within Mary Kay who are jumping up and down about it.

    I am confident that as with all situations that the company is doing its due diligence in getting to the bottom of the situation, right or wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Okay, let's get this straight.
    1. There are directors of nigerian descent in the Ruby Go-Give Area.
    2. some of these directors are the top directors.
    3. Nigerian scams exist
    4. There are people advertising MK products for sale in Nigeria.

    From those 4 statements, some people have come to "truth" that these top Nigerian directors are (not "might be") shipping product to Nigeria in order to scam MK out of commission money, because just being Nigerian means that you are a likely scammer.

    Some people are getting lots of exercise jumping to conclusions. Note the bigotted comment on PT: "these foreigners". Just replace that with Irish, Chinese, Mexicans, etc.

    I don't know where my wife heard it, but she heard that MK Corp was investigating the production numbers of the Nigerian directors. She told me this over six months ago. I have no idea whether what she heard was accurate, just rumor, a version of "telephone" where some directors' whining that "they should be investigated" turned into " they are being investigated."

    I know: Walks like a duck ... must be a duck, Occam's Razor, etc, but consider the source of this "news". It's the same place where people describe their total ineptitude and then blame it on MK. This is the same website that a year ago was saying that Dacia must be sending product to South America, because she lives in Miami.

    Remember this too: how well these Nigerian directors are doing and the commissions that they are earning has absolutely zero effect on how well anyone else does in MK and the commission someone else earns. There is no maximum amount of commissions paid by the company, just like there is no requirement that some other director move up or out before someone else becomes a director. Yes, there is only one Unit Queen of Sales in the Ruby Division, but the various courts are the only places where first, second and third matters.

    It's entirely possible that these directors are doing something unethical, but I'm not sure that selling MK in Nigeria is. Until then, what PT is doing is very similar to the letter that the 88 Duke professors wrote damning the Duke Lacrosse team.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course, if something is discovered and MK tosses out these directors, of course Tracy & her crew will claim credit for bringing it to MK's attention.

    Right. Anyone who thinks that MK Corp just sits there watching product flow out the door without wondering "why" has no idea of what happens in a corporation. MK has been watching these Nigerian directors, if only for the simple reason of figuring out what they are doing so that it can be taught to others and the success duplicated.

    I'm also sure that MK Corp is watching the top director very closely, because if it is true that she is doing something illegal/unethical, it would be much better to terminate her and her offspring before she became a NSD than afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  9. OKAY ... I am in Ruby (Go Give) and this is a little disturbing to me. The comments on the post on PT ... but a certain poster (are we allowed to name names???) are just absurd! Gloria Mayfield Banks involved in a Nigerian scam recruiting Harvard exchange students in South Africa into MK?! This is just getting ridiculous. I personally need to tear myself away from this whole blog scene because it is just upsetting me! lol. Anyway, just had to vent about that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. mkhonesty,

    I could not even hope to say it as well as you just did. (By the way, please consider being an author for this site - sorry, couldn't help it)

    I also was intrigued by the "feel" that was/is emerging over there.

    The word that came to my mind was racist. (because they were speaking of a specific race)

    But I think your word, bigot, is much more accurate in terms of describing tone that is set in general.

    Note the dictionary definition:

    "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

    Replace 'racial or ethnic group' with 'associated with or tolerant of Mary Kay' and BAM, you have a much more concise description of Pink Truth than Pink Truth's own description of itself.

    Perhaps I am being harsh, but after time and again trying to demonstrate that being a part of Mary Kay does mean what they say it means, it seems they are "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices" about this.

    I take that back, I am being harsh.

    But as they say, "the truth CAN be ugly".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Okay, this is where I get off the bus. I don't interpret the comments over on PT as being racist. The obvious fact is that the women they are reporting about are black and they have immigrated from Nigeria. Period.

    I'm particularly sensitive to this sort of accusation because I live in an area that as soon as you associate one specific group of people in a community with "issues", the race card is played to shut you up. I hate that. One poster is one poster. She's not PT. Just like one bad director does not represent the whole director community.

    My interpretation of the thread is that the posters are upset that this creates an unfair playing field for the other consultants selling in North America. That's the crux.

    The rumor, for months, has been that the Ruby Unit has been exporting. After some digging there is specific evidence that points to the fact that it is happening.

    Apparently Corporate reads the site. So they are demanding that something be done.

    In my opinion, if it's not illegal, at least Corporate should acknowledge how Ruby's numbers are being made and create a different category for them to compete in. There's a huge difference in women selling make-up and skin care in their immediate geographical community and another's ability to do that AND ship containers of make-up and skin care abroad to their home land. A destination that has not been opened by the very company they ALL sell for.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Reading the article and posts, I, too felt, that pt was "grouping" and the feeling I get is the same when they say "all" MK people.

    But, it is immature and childish, when you start making fun of names, how many of the posters are now trying to out do each other making "fake" Nigerian names. I thought you had to be 18 to sign an agreement?

    My two cents, Mary Kay more than likely is looking into this, they are not going to jump and do something that will come back to haunt them. (Lawsuits, wrongful terminations, etc,..) and I could be really wrong about this but I thought the problem with shipping out of the States, wasn't so much breaking your agreement but in conflict with import/export laws and agreements with Countries, trade embargos, so that if that idea is correct, it isn't Mary Kay per se but but every government department takes care of international trade that would have a problem with that amount of makeup leaving the country, right??

    I don't think any federal issue is every fast, and my guess would be they are far more concerned with drugs, guns, liquor, etc than makeup.

    NOW>>> remember I said this is just an observation, I have to go back and read the agreement again.

    I will say if PT really thinks Mary Kay isn't already on this, they can keep on fooling themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  13. flybye64 -- PT is a moderated forum. Tracy reads everything that is posted there and sometimes comments about what other people are stating. By both allowing the comment to be posted and by keeping silent about it, she ia tacitly agreeing with it. Inactions like hers are what allow bigotry to simmer under the surface. She is obviously more interested in not alienating a commenter than slapping down a bigotted comment.

    However, that's just the obvious comment. The entire purpose of the post is to imply that nigerian directors must be doing well because they are doing something illegal or unethical. (For years, the same unproved accusations have been made about consultants and directors with mexican roots.) It is simply part and parcel of one of Tracy's over-arching themes: that the only successful people in MK are cheaters and scammers, and that MK Corp knows and condones this.

    Again, I'm not sure that shipping product to Nigeria for sale is either illegal (per US or Nigerian law, which in Nigeria is probably a vague term), a violation of a Beauty Consultant or Sales Director agreement, or MK Legal-Ease. (I just skimmed all three of the latter documents and nothing jumped out at me about selling product outside of the US. If someone else finds a reference, please post it.) I do remember statements from MK to the effect that consultants should not sell US product in other countries because US product ingeredients and labeling may not meet those countries legal requirements, but I cannot find the reference.

    The question of whether it is "unethical" is wide open. There are some people and countries in this world who believe that a person must be given permission to do something first, rather than the philosophy that if something is not prohibited it must be permissible. (In general, the US falls into the latter category, while certain socialist and extremely bureaucratic countries fall into the former.) Some people will claim that the actions of a competitor are unethical or unfair, when really the competitor just thought of it first and had the money and mindset to take the risk.

    I'm sure that MK Corp reads PT, if only for the humor. Every company should read blogs that are negative about their product.

    Addressing your last comment: how does the company prove that these directors have been shipping anything overseas, whether it is a single box or a whole container? It would be much easier for the company to determine whether the consultants in the organization are actual residents of the US, or even actual people, in order to determine if the orders going to these consultants (and therefore the commissions going to the recruiters/directors) are valid. If some of the delivery/mailing addresses of these consultants are nothing more than drop boxes or virtual offices, or the universe of credit cards used to pay for the orders is much smaller than the universe of consultant names, then that's a string that needs to be pulled. For example, director A sets up a ficticious personal counsultant B, and then places orders as consultant B rather than herself. If director A is receiving 26% commission on consultant B's orders, then the actual cost to director A is reduced by that 26%. Even if consultant B (and C, D, etc) are real people who happen to live in Nigeria, and Director A is sending the product to these consultants in Nigeria, then I think there is a violation, because the consultants are not physically located in the US. The trick is proving it, not just acting on a hypothetical.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is interesting. How is it Mkhonesty “knows” the following:

    “Right. Anyone who thinks that MK Corp just sits there watching product flow out the door without wondering "why" has no idea of what happens in a corporation. MK has been watching these Nigerian directors, if only for the simple reason of figuring out what they are doing so that it can be taught to others and the success duplicated.

    I'm also sure that MK Corp is watching the top director very closely, because if it is true that she is doing something illegal/unethical, it would be much better to terminate her and her offspring before she became a NSD than afterwards.”

    He must have special access to what MKC does. This surely can’t be merely his opinion, ‘cause we all know Dave won’t allow unsubstantiated “facts” on this blog.

    Dave, I think the color pink is just fine for your elephant.

    Deleted (short for needs evidence)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Please blessed/deleted: Have you ever worked in corporate management? I have.

    You have something called "metrics". These are supposed to be objective, measurable items that can be tracked the weekly, monthly, quarterly or even yearly to measure the performance of the company, division or business unit.

    They are usually simple: widgets shipped per day, defects per hour/shift/day, cashier ring-up mistakes per day (measured by the number of times the manager has to stick his key in the cash register), etc. Sometimes it is hard to determine what to measure. A poorly chosen metric can lead to all sorts of wrong conclusions, and it's really hard to explain to your senior manager, or usually to an even higher level, why the metric that you are reporting should not be used to evaluate your division's (and therefore your) performance, because it is not accurate or doesn't mean what you thought it means. In other words, you chose a metric that you didn't understand (so the implication is that you don't understand your own operation.) Or you chose a metric that would make you look good and it came back and bit you. Or you chose a set of metrics just to placate the people above you and had no real intention of using those metrics for anything but birdcage lining.

    At a manufacturing plant or construction site, a commonly posted metric is "number of days since the last lost-time accident". In the Navy, it's time required to set "General Quarters", seconds between catapult launches or arrested landings, or fuel used per month/quarter. (Yes, the Navy measures fuel usage, because it costs money and excess fuel usage screws up the Navy's budget.)

    For a sales group, one of the most common metrics is sales booked per period. In a sales organization, if one area of the sales force is outshining the other areas, upper management is going to want to know why, not so they can stop it, but so they can recreate the success. To otherwise sit there and not do anything is contrary to the basic goal of any business: make money.

    ReplyDelete
  16. D,

    Maybe I was wrong about you being intelligent enough to figure this out. I still think I was right, but with comments like this, my belief that you are is seriously tested.

    I will go a step further than mkhonesty just did. Even if you have never been involved in a corporation (management or otherwise), it is just common sense that they would have some idea of the performance of their distributors.

    To simplify, let's say that the average director in Mary Kay orders 1,000 widgets per week.

    One day, a director orders 10,000 widgets for the week. The next week, she orders 10,000 again.

    How long do YOU think it will take for SOMEONE at MKC to say, "wow, this director is ordering A LOT more than the other ones. What's up with that?"

    As mkhonesty points out, they want to know (at least) two things.

    First, is everything on the up and up?

    Second, IF everything IS on the up and up, how/what can we teach to other directors so that THEY will be ordering 10,000 per week.

    What special access to MKC would he need to deduct that?

    Do you really feel that this is NOT common sense?

    I know (although that is fast becoming "I hope") that you are more intelligent than this.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mkhonesty,

    Thank you for taking the time to explain your position and the conclusions you’ve reached. This was unnecessary. I referenced your post not to challenge its content, but to challenge the way the administrator of this blog (Dave) allowed you to present your conclusions w/o also presenting substantiating evidence. Dave didn’t demand you prove what you stated you “know.”

    Whether your assertion is accurate or not is a nonissue as far as my most recent post is concerned. The issue is you didn’t have to present any evidence to support your stated conclusion. Again, I proclaim that I neither agree nor disagree with what you said you “know.” I merely highlight it as an illustration of the bye you and others get simply because you’re pro Mary Kay Cosmetics.

    Dave, I believe you must be a great guy. You impress me as having such depth, compassion. Besides all this, I’ve read some of your writings about your faith and I know you love and support your wife. What’s more you love animals. What a package! Somehow I feel confident whoever has the pleasure of associating with you is that much better off for the privilege. What is so incongruent with this package is the level of hypocrisy you immerse yourself in when you present this blog as a neutral venue for discussion but hold me to such arbitrary evidentiary standards.

    Deleted

    ReplyDelete
  18. delete, I think the appropriate word is "balanced' not neutral.

    Now granted, the majority of the posters are pro-mk but we are getting adding a few anti regulars. They are great, their questions are good, their insites helps promote conversation and helps to point out the pitfalls to watch for if you are a consultant. Some had even commented that they wished they had some of the knowledge they have gained her while in Mk because perhaps they wouldn't have ended up in a mess and havening to get out and they could have stayed in and have been enjoying their MK and earning some money.

    Not one pro-mker has ever said that everything is perfect, however the major problem lies with unethical pratices of individual. There are many things we would like to see adjusted, but there is more good than ba and more posetive change will come from within the Company then a negative blog with people that if you read long enough maybe just maybe just made lots of bad decisions. (for whatever reason)

    It seems the only one saying everything is bad is you.

    I have proven that I do this right and ethically, I did post somewhere on this site a recap of what an average month looks like for me. I have been doing this for 14 years and have no debt and my inventory is paid for and I take cash payment instead of the car. My consultants are happy, I have only had two chargebacks in 14 years was only for a couple of bucks. The other one, the consultant didn't want to but she was in a position where she felt she had to, and I wasn't going to argue with that.

    You have said that even the ethical ones do things "wrong" on occassion and manipulate, well, have you ever seen one person anywhere that doesn't on occassion, my goodness, our kids manipulate us every day, we manipulate our spouses, and this doesn't always result in bad things happening and the reason is not always evil. I just bribe my hubby to go away for a couple a days because we could use a break, I sort of manipulated or bribe hi, so sue me! I know we need to get away and have some time for each other and relax.

    The thing you haven't shown, is just because you and your wife made bad decisions in Mary Kay, is how you can prove that one can't make oney in MK if you run the business ethically.

    ReplyDelete
  19. D,

    Evidently you want me to believe that you are NOT intelligent enough to understand the difference.

    That is fine.

    The question then is, "do you WANT to understand?"

    Do you?

    Are you happy and content being the only one that doesn't "get it"?

    Is, as they say, ignorance bliss?

    Are you hoping that I will give you a pass and allow you to spew your unsubstantiated conclusions just because you are (or at least pretend to be) unaware of the difference?

    If you are, you are going to be disappointed.

    You say that you,

    "...feel confident whoever has the pleasure of associating with you is that much better off..."

    Assuming that you really believe that, let me ask you this.

    Would you like to be better off from your association with me?

    I have a natural born talent for teaching people. I actually really enjoy it.

    I will say this. If you really don't understand the difference between your posts and the other posts on this site, I will explain it to you.

    BUT (and this is a really big one) you have been ignoring my attempts to teach you this difference. SO, if you really want to learn something here, it is going to have to take place in a different venue. If you would like, you can email me (balancedmarykay@gmail.com) and I will answer any questions you have.

    Don't just send me your email address and expect me to understand what that means. You will have to let me know that you have a genuine desire to understand this.

    If you don't take me up on this, if you would prefer to just think me a hypocrite, that is your prerogative.

    Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  20. To the group, as I read the comments on pt about the Ruby directors, what dawned on my the most, is that many are complaining because these directors that are doing such large production, will be "Queen of Sales" at Seminar and that should tick every director off.

    Follow me here, please, I have my thought but it isn't going into words so well. But when I acheived Court of Sales for the 13th year, I was pleased that I had acheived that level, I will be recognized for that whether one other person did it over 2000 people did it.

    I know I didn't put forth the effort to be the Queen of Sales, and I will be happy for anyone that acheives Queen, I certainly didn't become a consultant and plan on being the Queen of Sales for Seminar.

    Why should we all be upset because a director did alot and she may be the Queen of Sales??

    Now, when I joined MK,it was to provide my family an income at the same time doing something I enjoyed doing that had flexibility, I received this from my business. One sits on the thrown at Seminar, really has no bearing on what I get from my business.

    If that is the main concern of these people and recognition seems to be so very important, are we starting to see why some may have ended up in trouble in MK??

    Is my thought/question coming across??

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mk4me,

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Please excuse me while I quote you to make a different point:

    “…however the major problem lies with unethical pratices of individual.” (sic).

    So Dave, you gonna delete Mk4me’s comment, maybe at least berate her for her failure to provide objective evidence supporting her assertion? No, I didn’t think so. At least admit your arbitrary evidence standards apply to me (and other pro-clarity people) only.

    Deleted

    ReplyDelete
  22. Flybye, (sorry this response is so late in the conversation)

    I understand what you are saying about people playing the race card.

    Where I live, on multiple occasions, I have been labeled racist - just because I am white.

    Many people, because of previous sensitivities (brought on by dealing with racism), will assume that any criticism leveled at a member of their race was leveled BECAUSE of their race. This is not always true.

    I believe that mkhonesty addressed that issue well though. While there was a healthy mix of comments over there that were of the variety you are describing (not inferring anything from the race of the alleged perpetrators), there were also a lot that - and as mkhonesty pointed out both times, the assumption of the post - drew conclusions based on the race of the participants.

    Consider mkhonesty's observation again:

    "Okay, let's get this straight.
    1. There are directors of nigerian descent in the Ruby Go-Give Area.
    2. some of these directors are the top directors.
    3. Nigerian scams exist
    4. There are people advertising MK products for sale in Nigeria.

    From those 4 statements, some people have come to "truth" that these top Nigerian directors are (not "might be") shipping product to Nigeria in order to scam MK out of commission money, because just being Nigerian means that you are a likely scammer."

    That is the part that is wrong. Call it racist, call it bigoted, call it prejudiced, or whatever you prefer. To form a conclusion in this manner is deplorable.

    The other issue here is (as mkhonesty has asked on other sites) what 'horse' does PT have in this race?

    IF this is an issue that they are hoping Mary Kay will address (we know it CAN'T be because they want Mary Kay to go down in flames) they should have presented their findings to Mary Kay. Not try to air it out on/in a public forum.

    IF they feel that they are being watchdog's to Mary Kay and exposing something that corporate is aware of and is ignoring because it is lucrative (more likely) they should present their finding to the FTC or some other governing body that could properly handle the problem (fines, penalties, lawsuits or whatever would be appropriate). AGAIN, NOT try to air it out on/in a public forum.

    As such, we are left asking why they have brought it up.

    It seems that they are suggesting that current directors SHOULD be upset about this. How is that productive to their goal? Unless they are done 'hoping' that Mary Kay will crumble and have progressed to the level of stirring up controversy in the hopes of doing the job themselves, I can't imagine a reason for them publishing their 'sleuth' work on a public forum.

    It is this question (I guess) that we are discussing here.

    Why would Pink Truth bring this up?

    I hope that (and what everyone else has said so far) helps. Again, sorry it took me so long to get this answer to you.

    ReplyDelete
  23. okay, here you go.

    since I operate the business by the guidelines of the Company and make money and have consultants making money, then imho, if you do the buiness as outlined, you will be fine, so the element to not doing it well must be because one is doing things differently than the plan.

    The proof, the Company has been in existance for 43 years, and even though consultants come an go many have been with the Company for many. many years. No one started as NSD, all started as a consultant and had to move up the career path, so all have the same opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Deleted,

    Perhaps you did not have time to read my previous comment before you posted this. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time 'remind' you that if you want me to explain this concept to you, it will have to be done in a different forum.

    That said, for the benefit of everyone else 'following along at home', allow me to ask you...

    Do I need to add "taking things out of context" to the things that I respectfully ask you to refrain from doing?

    Ironically, the one thing that I might ask mk4me to be careful with was right before what you quoted.

    She said, "Not one Pro-Mker has said that everything is perfect..."

    I COULD have said, "mk4me... you and I both know that there HAS to be at least one pro-mker that has said that."

    Actually, as is common with quickly written comments, the full sentence (the beginning that I quoted and the end that you quoted) put together is a little confusing. (I am sure that mk4me will agree) BUT if you look at the entire paragraph for which that sentence is an introduction, you will (should be able to) "get" what she was saying.

    MY take on what she was saying there is that there are some that believe the company to be at fault, some that believe it is solely the individual that is at fault, but creating an environment where people cross their arms and say "NO. I KNOW I AM RIGHT" will not help resolve that question.

    We are all saying that you are the person crossing his arms saying, "NO. I KNOW I AM RIGHT".

    If you think that what mk4me was doing there was crossing HER arms and saying, "NO. I KNOW I AM RIGHT" than I think I DO need to add an "out of context" addendum to the clause explaining what things "blessed/deleted" is asked to refrain from doing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. mk4me posted:
    She said, "Not one Pro-Mker has said that everything is perfect..."

    my bad, hanging head, very sorry, actually what I meant to say was with the posts that I have read on this site, I have not seen one comment from a pro-mker that said eveything was perfect.

    -Now, I must point out that I have not read every single comment on this site so I could be wrong, but this is more the idea I was trying to express. Also, I should say, and this is fact, that I never said everything was perfect. And there are a few things I would like to see changed.

    (Did I understand it right Dave?
    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  26. mk4me,

    It sure seems you understand!

    Did I get your comment right (or at least close?) - I hate to speak for someone else!

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mk4me,

    God love ya, you don’t need to explain for me; I know where you’re coming from, whether I agree or not. My point has nothing to do with your assertion. My point is you, and others holding a similar point of view, are able to express assertions on this blog w/o being accosted by arbitrary demands for evidence to support same. This is inherently unfair in an environment which purports to be a level playing field where all opinions, thoughts and ideas are welcome.

    Dave,

    You’re more than welcome to send anything to me via e-mail, as is anyone. My address is:
    mkfromhell@yahoo.com

    I don’t believe, in the context of this issue, there is anything for me to learn from you (even though there may well be in other contexts). No, in this context you should not view me as someone seeking knowledge. You can view me as an affiant alleging wrongdoing in the context of your blog. I don’t think you’re a hypocrite. I do, though, think setting different evidentiary standards for me is hypocritical.

    I’ve certainly provided the examples you demanded. What’ja gonna do about it, if anything?

    Deleted

    ReplyDelete
  28. D,

    I don't know if you are trying to be ironic.

    The very issue I am offering to explain to you comes up in your little taunt.

    "I’ve certainly provided the examples you demanded."

    SAYING that you provided examples IS NOT the same thing as providing examples.

    I am not sure if I am impressed with your ability to keep having this problem or something else.

    I think the appropriate 'phrase' is "LOL".

    Thank you for the clarification - and I will return the favor - If you would like to believe that I am BEING hypocritical, that is your prerogative.

    ReplyDelete
  29. But do you believe it’s hypocritical to demand different evidentiary standards from me that you demand from others?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "than" rather than "that"

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sort of, I confused myself when I read it back. -hahaha

    I guess I am just excited about getting away for several days with my wonderful hubby, we are planning on doing some white water rafting, horse back riding, dining, dancing, swimming, and well the room has a swimming pool, sauna and jacuzzi in it!! ;)

    Oh, update on day two of my summer open house $1,170 retail sales, not including tax, not bad. Product sales to actual clients. How exciting and fun.
    Caught up with everyone and it was fun.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dave,

    Do you not believe the examples I’ve presented are, in fact, illustrations of a double standard? Is there something else you need, more examples?

    Deleted

    ReplyDelete
  33. D,

    Yes, it WOULD be... if it were true.

    No, I already told you (after each of the examples), that those are NOT examples of a double standard.

    I even explained WHY they are not.

    YOU yourself told both of the people you "used" as examples that you understood their point and did not need their further explanation.

    I am from the east coast. I refer to pizza (from time to time) as a "pie". As in "pizza pie".

    Some people don't "get" that.

    When they ask me to what I mean, I don't tell them they are "...demanding different evidentiary standards from me...", I just explain what I meant.

    You have (at times) burst into the middle of a conversation with sarcasm and 'word pictures' that made us all go "huh". When I (we) ask you to explain what you are talking about, you cry foul.

    I am sorry you don't understand.

    Maybe I am just not as good of a teacher as I thought. :(

    ReplyDelete
  34. You’re not very good at ducking either.

    Your demand for evidence from me has nothing to do with different nomenclatures used on the west vs. east coasts. I don’t think you’re gonna be able to duck this one my friend.

    Here’s an out. Why not just admit this venue is not an arena for the free exchange of differing ideas and conclusions. That way you don’t have to demand one poster provide evidence for their conclusions/illustrations while giving others a bye. Tracy C. does this; she clearly states you will not be permitted to express some ideas, make some assertions on PT. Nothing wrong with that; no hypocrisy there.

    An alternative is to simply allow me to ramble. If you’re gonna espouse a free exchange of ideas, conclusions, information, etc, than do it. …or wallow in your own hypocrisy.

    Ya know, this is one of the things that really bothered us about the entire MK experience. People say they’ll do one thing, but then do something else. The way you’ve arbitrarily demanded a different evidentiary standard from me on this blog is a metaphor for the way the Mary Kay MLM paradigm promotes one thing and then, for so many, delivers something entirely different.
    Say what you mean and do what you say.

    Deleted

    ReplyDelete
  35. D,

    Let's try this from a different angle.

    You are accusing me of,

    "...arbitrarily demanding a different evidentiary standard from you on this blog..."

    Please explain what you mean by THIS.

    Perhaps I have misunderstood where you feel that I wronged you.

    My East Coast illustration was an EXAMPLE. I am not saying that the problem I have had with your posts was the same.

    The problem I have had with your posts is that you just say whatever you feel like saying and when people ask you to explain why you feel the way you feel, YOU DO NOT.

    YOU:

    "Mary Kay is like a pool of crocodiles"

    US:

    "Why do you feel that way?"

    YOU:

    "Read this post I wrote"

    *****

    mkhonesty:

    "Mary Kay, like any corporation would, knows about this situation."

    YOU:

    (smugly) "mkhonesty MUST be an MK insider for him to 'know' this, or Dave would have deleted his comment"

    mkhonesty:

    "(from my experience with corporations) I know that Mary Kay has insight into this... it is the way corporations work"

    *****

    Do you not see the difference?

    Further, bear in mind that it wasn't just once that we asked you to explain why you feel the way you feel.

    And you weren't exactly describing an industry standard practice.

    You were leveling an accusation.

    ------

    Setting all that aside, you raise a good point.

    You want me to let you ramble.

    Apparently, that is part and parcel to encouraging the "free exchange of ideas, conclusions, information".

    I don't agree.

    I have never said that this blog is a place where people can ramble. I don't claim that this site is a haven to those who are bitter and need a place to spew vitriolic sentiments.

    This is a place for people to rationally discuss the good and bad that has happened/is happening in Mary Kay in hopes of achieving a more enlightened understanding of the truth concerning Mary Kay.

    Some people just stop by and say, "my experience was this" (good or bad) I never censor those.

    Some people delve into the details and try to come to some conclusions. They posit suggestions as to what they think might be going on. They cite examples from their experience outside of Mary Kay that might shed some light on areas of Mary Kay that we are discussing. They state beliefs and opinions that they hold and why they hold those beliefs and opinions.

    These are all fine.

    Then there's you.

    You fall into a category all to yourself. And you demand that I allow you to "ramble" and "rant and rave" just because I assert that this is a balanced blog.

    Sorry, two different things.

    You would like everyone reading this to believe that I censored you because you are anti-mk.

    This is similar to someone that is "not white" suggesting that they were pulled over for speeding BECAUSE they were "not white".

    It may be true. Racism has been proven to exist. Maybe the cop was racist and let a white person speed by him and then pulled him over because he was not white.

    But if that same cop pulled over a proportionate number of speeders white or otherwise, the accusation would be inaccurate.

    The fact that the only person that has come in violation of this (relatively) unwritten rule was EXTREMELY pro-mk and turned out to be YOU should be proof enough that I don't allow whatever you call your comments no matter what "side of the fence" they are on.

    It is not your position, friend, it is something else. And again, I know you understand this.

    Your "misunderstanding" of this issue - and consequently resulting accusation against Mary Kay - reveals an underlying issue that makes me wonder just how "lied to" you were.

    Did someone (for instance) tell you that you could work "part time hours OR work your way to an executive income", and all you heard was "Part time hours AND executive income"?

    You have yet to tell us what "the Mary Kay MLM paradigm promoted".

    You have also yet to tell us what it delivered.

    --------

    All that to say, perhaps I have misunderstood where you feel I wronged you. Maybe you don't know.

    One of my core values in life is that my word is my bond. I do say what I mean and do what I say. You have seen this in the way I accepted your correction when I had used what could have been construed as abusive language.

    I take exception to your accusations. I have tried to explain my stance. If you can't grow up and see this simple concept for what it is, I MUST leave you to think that I am wallowing in my hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  36. In think I would like to add,
    deleted, from your comments, what I understand is that you feel Mary Kay is bad, all bad - nothing anyone can say will change your mind. You and your wife were lied to and the results were nearly devasting for y'all. Is my understanding correct?

    Okay we understand, you feel that way and feelings are never wrong, they just are.
    I understand your statement and I accept it for what it is.

    That being said, your other posts must be way beyond my intelligence because, I just don't get many of them, so for myself, could you "dumb" it down a little?? Thx

    ReplyDelete
  37. You’re confused. I don’t WANT you to allow me to “ramble.” I’d much rather you admit your purported objectivity is a farce (which I believe I’ve clearly demonstrated). The difference is you didn’t ask Mkhonesty or Mk4me (and others) to provide evidence. Whether they ultimately provided it or not is moot. The point is YOU didn’t challenge their assertions, you didn’t demand evidence.

    You do demand evidence from me.

    It’s as simple as that.

    The issue is not whether a poster may or may not be willing to provide “proof” to support their assertion, the issue is the way this blog operator (you) selectively requires proof to substantiate assertions from some and not others.

    Frankly, I expected more than this from you. Just think for a moment: Are you sure you are unwilling to acknowledge your evidentiary demands on me have been unfair? Do you admit your demands for proof to be submitted in conjunction with reader’s assertions, has been arbitrary?

    deleted

    ReplyDelete
  38. if it will help end this game,
    (as in ping pong) (back and forth) Dave, has asked me to give example or better explain or rephrase my babbling and ask if that is actually what I meant to say as oppossed to what I said.

    I accept this and respected it as it is his blog. (I did explain to him my thought process and all was well) so...

    you are not the only one that has been asked to expland the post.

    ReplyDelete
  39. speaking the real truthJune 29, 2008 at 7:58 PM

    Deleted or Blessed, I do not see how you think that a different standard has been set for you.

    No one here (that I know of) has asked you to reveal your identity, your wife's identity, to provide concrete numbers or irrefutable evidence of why you hate Mary Kay.

    Just as I am not asked to provide W2s or copies of sales tickets when I tell what I sold or how I finished the year, the same would be true for you. I, and others, are just asking for some statement of what happened, such as we lost money because such and such happened, etc.

    You keep saying that you are required to provide proof, I'm not asking for any proof, in fact, how could I? I wouldn't know what to ask you to prove! So far you have just listed feelings. You can say a lot without telling the whole story or outing yourself.

    It would be like my saying that I am successful in Mary Kay without telling you just some of my accomplishments, or like my saying that I have Sally Jo, but not saying why in any way.

    It just does not make sense unless you do just want to ramble on. If that is the case, it is wasting a lot of space here. Neither the pro or anti Mary Kay people could get on board with you because you don't give anything specific to agree with or debate except feelings and inaccurate analogies.

    ReplyDelete
  40. speaking the real truthJune 29, 2008 at 8:00 PM

    Deleted, BTW, those "good questions" that I listed for you last night, are still unanswered. This is why everyone gets so frustrated with you. You dismiss the direct questions and move on to another novella.

    AND, in all fairness, you are open to ask questions of any of us.

    ReplyDelete
  41. ((sigh))

    Anyone can request clarification on this blog. It is not ALWAYS me.

    If someone doesn't understand someone else, if someone doesn't agree, if someone does not believe there are facts to support an assertion, they may, in a rational way, request clarification.

    For instance, I once intoned that I did not believe anyone could be "this ignorant". You pointed out that I was out of line. I had nothing to support my initial proclamation, so I adjusted it.

    YOU made an assertion. I challenged it. YOU made the same assertion without clarifying in the way I asked. I asked AGAIN for you to clarify. YOU made the same assertion AGAIN just with a different picture. So I deleted it.

    If you had challenged one of these two (or anyone) for that matter and they just kept saying the same thing in different ways, it would be a different story.

    Everyone else (so far, with the exception of your 'fake consultant' persona) has provided the requested clarification.

    "The Issue" is that YOU are the only one that has been unwilling to back up what you say.

    Some anti-mkers have said stuff that made me scratch my head, but in dialoguing with other readers (while I was at work and couldn't say anything) the "heart of the matter" was attained and I did not have to say anything.

    I didn't have to ask them for an explanation. You did it for me. And they responded. (To your satisfaction I believe)

    I will say it again,

    "If you can't grow up and see this simple concept for what it is, I MUST leave you to think that I am wallowing in my hypocrisy. "

    ReplyDelete
  42. Mk4me,

    I think you do yourself a disservice. I’ve read some of your stuff and I strongly doubt there’s any reason for anyone to “dumb” anything down for you. Too often I find some folks are interested in placing words in my mouth.

    My mother and her siblings use to tease my grandmother. Grandma had a way of always seeing a positive side to anyone (she was truly a gift). One day my Mom and her sisters laughingly told her, “Mom, I bet you think there’s something good even about the devil himself.” Grandma paused and said, “Well, he does work very hard.”

    With that illustration let me suggest there is plenty good about Mary Kay Cosmetics. There was an article on PT a while back asking readers to provide examples of something good that came out of their MK experience. Answers ranged from improved public speaking, to more assertiveness, to …well many other things.

    That aside, the issue I have with Dave has nothing specifically to do with any MK issue per se. My concern is more one of process rather than about a particular topic.

    It’s unfortunate there are so many instances when a product, service, or something as simple as defined boundaries on a blog can be so different than what the presenter/provider advertises.

    Dave and his insistence I be held to a more stringent evidentiary standard is an example of this. My hope is Dave will simply agree to treat me fairly (the same as he treats pro MK folks), or acknowledge this blog is not the venue for input from all sides he suggests it is.

    I bet you’re a peace-maker at heart. Your gesture here paints you as such. God bless.

    Deleted

    ReplyDelete
  43. d,

    in regards to your response to mk4me and your,

    "...hope is Dave will simply agree to treat me fairly (the same as he treats pro MK folks), or acknowledge this blog is not the venue for input from all sides he suggests it is."

    1. I have demonstrated that I do treat you the same as I treat EVERYONE on this blog (pro or anti)

    2. I suggest that this blog allows input from all sides. I do not suggest that anyone can say whatever they want on this blog.

    YOU want me to treat you DIFFERENTLY from everyone else on the blog (in that you want me to allow you to say whatever you want)

    YOU want to put words in my mouth to suggest that my intent on this blog is to let anyone say anything they want.

    You are childishly throwing a proverbial fit because I won't give in to either of those things.

    One more time, for "good measure",

    "If you can't grow up and see this simple concept for what it is, I MUST leave you to think that I am wallowing in my hypocrisy."

    ReplyDelete
  44. Speaking,
    I've not forgotten your request. Still thinking about it.
    Ya know, if this blog were a courtroom, there would be one system of due process for the pro “opportunity” folks and a different due process system for me and the rest of my ilk. Just aint fair!

    It’s not fair and I believe most of you readers agree.

    For now, I’ve got a big week staring at me and I’m going to bed. I wish you all a pleasant week and acknowledge we are fortunate to be able to converse with each other. I just wish it could be on the level playing field as advertised.

    Goodnight.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Here is a GREAT example.

    If you had said THIS:

    "Ya know, if this blog were a courtroom, there would be one system of due process for the pro “opportunity” folks and a different due process system for me and the rest of my ilk. Just aint fair!"

    without all the lead up conversation we have been having, I would have just deleted it.

    But since everyone knows WHY you feel this blog is what you just claimed it is, I will let it stay.

    SEE? (probably not, but one can hope)

    You think that most readers on this blog would AGREE that I treat you unfairly? Let's see! Look for the "latest poll"!!

    Anyone that would care to add commentary to their "vote" can do so here!

    So far, it is unanimous that I DON'T treat you unfairly!!!

    I am sure there will be at least one vote saying that I DO treat you unfairly (or maybe two if you use your work computer and your home computer to vote)!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dave's quote: "Why would Pink Truth bring this up?

    I hope that (and what everyone else has said so far) helps. Again, sorry it took me so long to get this answer to you.:"

    I can't make excuses for people's ignorance. My gramma was a supreme bigot. (I only found this out when I was about 16!) But my parents didn't raise us that way. What can I say. Ignorance is ignorance and it exists in every nook and cranny in the world. It's sad. We all bleed, our attributes are the same, we all possess a conscience and what separates us from the primates. I just try to grasp what's really important and deal with that. The other noise will just wear me down and depress me if that's where I focus my energy.

    There is so much I can't finish reading tonight...so many tangents.

    I can't speak for anybody else but myself... So forgive me for not finishing this thread or acknowledge other interesting threads right now. My posts at the moment are about the Nigerian women in the Ruby division...

    Irrespective of this or that, the director's agreement is explicit about where you can conduct your business. (As per what I just finished reading on 'that' blog.) I did some digging and read it myself. The agreement is explicit. "If" the ruby division is exporting, they are violating their agreements.

    Ruby's numbers are extraordinary.

    So... the next step is to 1) approach the Ruby division in order to investigate their sales, and, 2) the Ruby directors need to demonstrate where their sales exist.

    If they're in violation, then they should be terminated.

    Why would Pink Truth bring it up..

    ....because Corporate won't? Because the sales force won't? It's kinda like a big elephant in the middle of the room that everybody sees but nobody acknowledges. So deal with it already.

    Mary Kay's been around since the 60's. Do they even realize that the average home in the US has MORE than one PC per household?

    The internet is a party line. Information is available at the touch of a fingertip.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Your word is your bond???? How hilarious. You lie every time you pretend that this site is for balanced and open discourse about Mary Kay.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Flybye,

    First of all, I salute you for your decision to focus your energy on what is really important to you.

    (ask my wife) I am always saying, "choose your battles"!!!

    You suggest that Pink Truth brought it up...

    "... because corporate won't..."
    "... because the sales force won't..."

    I first wonder, are YOU suggesting that corporate/the sales force won't bring it up?

    OR

    are you suggesting that PINK TRUTH is suggesting that corporate/the sales force won't bring it up?

    Regardless,

    I think it is a stretch for anyone to assume that corporate/the sales force have NOT brought it up.

    As mkhonesty has pointed out, it is HIGHLY unlikely that corporate is unaware of the high volume in that area of the sales force. The fact that they are not broadcasting it on the "party line" that the internet is should only speak to their discretion in dealing with this quietly until they KNOW what is going on, rather than brashly throwing speculations around that could hurt innocent people.

    It is ALSO highly unlikely that the sales force has not brought it to Mary Kay Corporate's attention. Again, the fact that it is not all over the "party line" speaks to THEIR discretion about allowing the company they represent to sort things out quietly until they have all the facts and can deal with it appropriately.

    I am NOT saying that I KNOW these things. I am saying that no one (except those that are being discussed) can KNOW whether or not these things are being dealt with.

    Pink Truth is PUBLICLY accusing Mary Kay of "ignoring" this problem. They are presenting as evidence that they don't SEE Mary Kay dealing with it.

    They are similarly accusing Mary Kay's sales force of "ignoring" this problem. Again, the only evidence that seems to be offered is that they don't SEE it being dealt with.

    So, on that 'front', I am suggesting that Pink Truth is (as mkhonesty pointed out) coming to a conclusion that is debatable at best.

    Beyond that, even if corporate and the sales force are "looking the other way", how is Pink Truth "helping" by blabbing about it on the internet? If they have proof that Mary Kay is violating the agreement that they enter into with their consultants, there are legal channels that can (and should) be pursued. And I am SURE that a successful lawsuit against Mary Kay would be quite lucrative indeed!

    If this unsubstantiated conclusion turned out to be true; If Mary Kay was intentionally ignoring violations of their own contract because it was more profitable for them, it would look very bad for the company. It is my opinion that Pink Truth posted it for that reason. They don't have to prove anything on their site. They just have to say "The Nigerians are selling abroad" and everyone else either falls in line and agrees/concludes that "it must be true" or risks being deleted. After a few days, everyone moves on to the next topic and THAT becomes one of the "pillars" that they build their case against Mary Kay on.

    As you can see here, we are also left to speculate. I can assure you that Mary Kay Corporate is not going to email me and say, "don't worry Dave, we are looking into this"!!! However, we are not going to build a case that Mary Kay is such a great company because they are dealing with this so discretely. We will wait and see what happens. I don't think anyone on this blog really cares that much if someone is cheating to get prizes. They are in this for the money they are earning, not the prizes... the prizes are just 'extras'.

    I agree with you that people in violation of their contract should be terminated (perhaps I would allow for a warning or two first but...). I suspect that if there are violations of contracts happening we will see terminations... in due time. Otherwise, it is going to take more than the Pink Truth "detectives" blabbing about their findings online to uncover this kind of scandal. It takes legal pressure and (sorry to say) "real" investigation.

    Imagine the prosecutor of this kind of case presenting as evidence that:

    1. There are directors of nigerian descent in the Ruby Go-Give Area.
    2. some of these directors are the top directors.
    3. Nigerian scams exist
    4. There are people advertising MK products for sale in Nigeria.

    And then resting their case!!

    Ok, now I am rambling... it is getting a little late. I hope that makes sense?!

    As always, thank you for your insight and perspective. It is always welcome here.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous,

    please read this and prepare adequately. Very soon, anonymous comments will not be able to be made at all.

    I am sorry that you think one of my core values is laughable.

    "lie" is a very strong word.

    "pretend that this site is for..." is a very strong accusation.

    It is too bad YOU are not strong enough to even have the courage to create an identity. Or even express WHY you feel that. As you have obviously been following this thread, you should know that it is this sort of statement that I apply the "put up or shut up" template to.

    I suspect that you will do neither, but really, that comment makes you look so ridiculous that I would rather leave it up for all to see than take it down.

    ReplyDelete
  50. speaking the real truthJune 30, 2008 at 4:47 AM

    Deleted, did you even read my post directed to you? Why do you think that you are being held to a higher standard?

    If I came here and said that I am extremely successful in Mary Kay and I love it, wouldn't there be questions about that? Would it have any credibility if I didn't say something further? Success is subjective as are all feelings.

    I think that Dave has been fair with you. I believe that you two are in some type of word battle, though, and it does get boring. You seem to only focus on what one or two posters say to you most of the time, so is this something personal with them?

    The fact that Dave allows your long postings is proof of his fairness. They are often very long and often deviate from the topic and back to your personal situation, which you will not explain, so what is the point?

    I've made the above comment about proof to you at least 4 times with no response.

    ReplyDelete
  51. O M G! We go out to bring the kids to see WALL E and all hell breaks loose!

    My goodness!

    OK, Dave does, IMO, treat Blessed differently. This site is CLEARLY a pro MK site. Nothing balanced about it, IMHO.

    Yes, the pro MKers will admit to wrongdoing by some of the IBCs, Directors, etc., but it is after much debate and then they turn around and say the wronged person should have read InTouch, should have known better, should have . . . The maniputlator is never just WRONG. It is always partially the anti MKers fault. IMHO. Did I make that clear? These are just my thoughts and how this blog comes across to me.

    I know how you feel, Blessed. I have been asked to provide more proof. Others can say how wonderful MK is and how well they are doing and nothing is ever asked of them to back it up. MK4ME has backed up her statements. The others, not so much. And if you read their blogs about MK you can plainly see where they are asking for help in their business. I always thought that was funny. They praise MK to no end on this site. But on their own sites they tell how much they made the past week (and it isn't much) and ask for help in how to do it better. On this site, all is honkydory (I am pretty sure that is not spelled right!). The say they love their business, it is all they want, they don't WANT to make more money, they only want a little extra. But on their own sites they are asking for how to do it better, how to make more, how to get that elusive booking, etc. Whereas on this site, they are making it sound like it all they want and more and could not be better.

    So it is my opinion that Blessed is treated differently. I think it is because he will not be changed. Everyone knows that Blessed feels a certain way and not one can change his mind, and most people LIKE to be able to turn people around and change their way of thinking. Blessed is also very "in your face". He won't back down, which can be irritating, if your experience is positive.

    Dave said somewhere, in regards to MKHonesty's comment, that it was common sense that MKC knew about what was going on in Nigeria. I think it is common sense, too. I also think it is common sense that they do not terminate contracts of those selling ALOT because that is where their money is. Why would they terminate? They are making money. And making money is their business. Only if someone hollers loudly will they do anything. This, I have seen from experience. And if they terminated everyone who was violating their contract, who would be left? In leadership roles? The few NSDs who have done it right and ethically?

    That's enough for me. Please remember that the thoughts I have expressed are mine. They are my opinions, formed from what I have seen while in MK. Formed after meeting many directors and NSDs.

    ReplyDelete
  52. You're right Dave. I don't know what's going on behind closed doors. The discussions, investigation, if there even is one?

    Based on the agreement that Mary Kay has with each consultant, it's just really easy to follow-up on and really, does it/should it take two years?

    judi's quote "Dave said somewhere, in regards to MKHonesty's comment, that it was common sense that MKC knew about what was going on in Nigeria. I think it is common sense, too. I also think it is common sense that they do not terminate contracts of those selling ALOT because that is where their money is. Why would they terminate? They are making money. "

    Why would they terminate... well [if] it's proven that they are indeed selling to Nigerian women, then they are in violation of their Agreement. You're only allowed to sell your product within your own national (residential) boundary. What's the point of the agreement if you get to cherry pick who, what or when you're going to apply the conditions.

    If Mary Kay doesn't really care, then let it be known that all IBCs are free to sell to whomever they wish to in any untapped market.

    Today they're discussing Touch of Pink's response to Mary Kay's lawsuit.

    Mary Kay is pretty explicit about what they will not "tolerate" from TofP. I can't help but shake my head and laugh at it. To me the Touch of Pink lawsuit is bogus. A red herring.

    ReplyDelete
  53. In response to Judi's post --

    I do not believe this is a pro-MK site. I do believe most of the posters here have had positive experiences in MK, but not all and we see those too. I cannot know this for sure since I don't know if any posts have been deleted, but I suspect not many just for posting a bad experience. In fact, Dave solicits those. Just because the majority of posters here are positive, some will interpret that as the site being pro-MK. Just because some ask questions, disagree or try to change minds does not mean this is pro-MK. Isn't that part of the purpose of a blog?

    As you have probably guessed, my short experience in MK has been very positive. I am making money, friends and enjoying this business. Yes, I am satisfied with the success I have had. But I also would like to learn how to make more money with my business. Who doesn't? But I, for one, will ask for guidance from those who have been more successful. I will then weigh that information and if it is not illegal, immoral (which includes unethical in my world of morality) or fattening (ok, that last one is up for debate) take their advise. That is the same I do with my full time job.

    Wanting to improve your business is not a bad thing and I don't think I have seen any posts where anyone said they did not want to improve their business (which means making more money).

    ReplyDelete
  54. I haven’t read this whole thread—I glazed after a while.

    Regarding PT, MKHonesty said: "It's the same place where people describe their total ineptitude and then blame it on MK."

    Well, that was kind. Aren't you glad you're allowed to paint every PTer with the same brush? Oh, wait...I thought that's what you condemned us for doing. This is your blog, so that's your right. Just remember, it cuts both ways.

    I was never deep enough into MK to care much about how those above me sold their product. If the Ruby directors who are shipping to Nigeria are breaking MK rules, they should be stopped. But, if not, then any North American consultants who can’t do the same thing will just have to suck it up and realize they’ll never reach Court level. Hopefully they’re doing their business for themselves and not for arbitrary recognition.

    And Corporate does read PT. They’d be stupid not to. All companies should listen to their dissatisfied “employees” in order to find ways to improve. MK would make more profit if all of us were happy to stay in satisfactorily as IBCs.

    mk4me said: “I have been doing this for 14 years and have no debt and my inventory is paid for and I take cash payment instead of the car. My consultants are happy, I have only had two chargebacks in 14 years was only for a couple of bucks. The other one, the consultant didn't want to but she was in a position where she felt she had to, and I wasn't going to argue with that.”

    I just had to comment: damn, this girl is good! :) Keep it up, mk4me. :) In addition, in your comment you stated that one can make money in MK ethically, I would like to qualify that with: if you’re gifted (or at least enjoy) sales. If they don’t meet that criteria, then no, they probably won’t make money in MK and will probably lose money if they invest too much in inventory (they’ll lost at least 10%). Hey, look, Dave! Vaguely empirical data! ;) mk4m3, I have a feeling you discuss this with potential recruits before they sign up, since you appear to have many successful IBCs.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Regarding David's demands for evidence, he has indeed asked me for concrete evidence to things I've stated. I've let him know I don't have any beyond personal experience, which is evidence enough for me and for a ton of folks over at PT. When a child touches a hot stove top and gets burned, they learn by that evidence to not touch a hot stove top. They may even tell other children who they see reaching for the stove top to not touch it--because they could get burned. That's PT.

    It's still up to that other child whether or not they decide to reach for the stove top. Incidentally, the stove top may or may not burn them, depending on how they learn to interact with it. Myself, I ain't no cook. ;) No one told me to not reach for the MK stovetop. And while the choice was still mine, I sure would've deeply appreciated my recruiter and director saying, "Hey, now don't reach so fast. Take your time--it's hot and you could get burned." Instead they said something along the lines of, "Oh, anyone can cook! We did it! Just jump on that stove and get going!"

    David, I do think your request for empircal evidence is asking a bit much from regular folks giving opinions. But, Deleted, he has asked for it from more than just you. I just tell him to sod off. ;) And I mean that in the best sense of the word, David. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  56. Enesvy makes the point very well. Personal experience with actual experience references is evidence enough to allow a rational discussion on this board.

    The child with hand on the stove analogy is perfect. We can have a discussion around that. If it had simply been "I got burned", the discussion would have been very hard -- was it a fire, was it a stove, was it a mathc, did you touch it or did someone burn you ...?

    I do think most here want to have a real and open discussion to understand, enlighten and learn -- not just hear a lot or rhetoric. I can learn from the experiences of others and I appreciate their input, both what to do right in this business and what to watch out for.

    ReplyDelete
  57. WARNING --- REALLY LONG RESPONSE AHEAD..... SORRY IN ADVANCE!!!!

    Enesvy, Itcme,

    Your comments here make me suspect that deleted has been a little more successful in his efforts than I thought he was.

    I have never used the word empirical. He introduced that word to the conversation.

    I have made no demands on either of you (or any other anti-mker) to back up your experience.

    I myself have said very little about my wife's experience and have certainly presented no evidence to support what I claim has been her experience.

    You say, "I had a bad experience".

    I say, "Can you elaborate?"

    You say, "I would rather not"

    We leave it at that.

    Some people have gone into great detail, others have not. The level of involvement you decide to engage in is completely up to you.

    I truly believe that I have been completely impartial in this regard.

    Aside from delted/blessed, the ONLY comments that I have deleted were PURE spam. As in, "check me out" with a link to a really nasty website.

    If any of you were to come on here and say that you KNOW that Mary Kay is intentionally burying people in debt, I would DEMAND the proof. If you say that you THINK or FEEL or BELIEVE that, I will ASK you why you feel that way.

    That is why I suggest that I am not treating blessed/deleted UNfairly.

    This blog is for everyone. In order for it to be FAIR to everyone, I must apply the same rules to everyone.

    Enesvy, Itcme, you guys have not had any problem "playing by the rules". Have I deleted any of your comments? How many 'inflamatory' comments (on both sides) have I allowed?

    How many "this is my experience" comments (on both sides) have I allowed?

    The answer is ALL.

    The only comments that I deleted were his. And they were NOT, "this is my experience"

    I realize that the "history" of deleted/blessed goes back pretty far and it is really a pretty boring story.

    The problem, for me, is that he jumps to conclusions.

    He made his "debut" on this site when I brought up a discussion about his encounter what he believed to be a Mary Kay lady.

    He had concluded this on nothing more than the fact that the vehicle she was driving had a Mary Kay sticker on it.

    Ever since then, he will often generate and entire argument here based on similarly groundless conclusions.

    Including this discussion.

    He has (seemingly) convinced you both that if you don't present 'empirical' evidence for your experience I will disallow it.

    Anyone that has followed the comments here will know that nothing is further from the truth.

    For instance,

    Enesvy... you said,

    "Regarding David's demands for evidence, he has indeed asked me for concrete evidence to things I've stated. I've let him know I don't have any beyond personal experience, which is evidence enough for me..."

    And it is for me too.

    Please, correct me if I am wrong.

    Have I ever deleted a comment of yours?

    Have I ever suggested that your opinion is diminished because you don't have 'evidence' to support it?

    The reason I am asking you to correct me if I am wrong is because I am very confident that I have not. To you or anyone else. Including Blessed/deleted.

    Am I making sense? I LOVE that you don't agree with me on everything. Later (when I get a chance to really sit down with this) I want to talk about the suggestion that Enesvy just brought up on the "good laugh" post.

    The suggestion that MLM's promote uninformed risk taking (although debatable) is being offered as your position, and you are offering as suggestion as to how an MLM could decrease the chances of this happening.

    I will most likely challenge your belief that MLM's promote this, just as I would challenge an assertion by someone that was approached and deceived by an unscrupulous broker, that the lending institution he financed you through was at fault for his behavior.

    I have heard of people being "conned" in this way too.

    The broker "sucks you in" with an ad in a newspaper, "buy a house with no money down, and monthly payments that are smaller than your rent is right now". When you get in there, he rushes you through a bunch of signatures saying, "don't worry, this is all standard stuff, you can trust me" And all of a sudden (as you can imagine) you are in BIG trouble.

    Just because he finance you through, say, Bank Of America, does not mean that Bank Of America is PROMOTING his behavior.

    However, as you point out, Bank Of America SHOULD always be considering what they can do to prevent this from happening, as it IS ultimately bad for their business... even if they are not responsible for it.

    (I guess I am getting a start on that response, eh?)

    So, I am NOT going to argue with you over semantics, saying, "You make it sound like you KNOW MK is promoting this... where's your proof", as blessed/deleted would have you believe. It is a conversation for crying out loud. We all make sweeping generalizations to make a point.

    The major difference is that his generalizations/exaggerations often are not cohesive (as the example I just gave was) and don't lead to a suggestion or beneficial conclusion.

    It is just ranting for ranting sake.

    It is just generalizing for "shock value".

    I am not looking for that on this site. I asked him and am still asking him to not do that.

    I am not saying that it is not his right to "rant and rave" on the side of the road.

    I am saying that I have requested that he not "rant and rave" on my blog.

    When he pretended to be pro-mk and "ranted and raved", I similarly requested he not do that... before I realized it was really him.

    Please see here and scroll through the comments.

    I address the same "style" there in what was perceived as a pro-mker, and if the same disregard for my requests had held up, you can be sure I would have deleted the offending comments.

    I think the "key" quote from me there would be:

    "Regardless of what "side of the coin" you claim to fall on, I will hold you to the same standard."

    ...Wow, that was WAAAAAAY longer than I intended... (at least I have time to go to the top and provide a warning before I actually publish this! So by the time you are reading this you will have already been warned~~~)

    Hope that helps better explain my "position" about blessed.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Thanks, David. :) I honestly can't say exactly where it was that you asked for proof of whatever it was (clearly it was vastly important to me). I just did want to say that I had felt challenged at one point by you to provide proof, or back up my statements. I believe you when you say you didn't ask for empirical data. It makes sense at the speed that I was reading, that I would latch onto that word as part of the discussion and then reuse it. Thanks for clearing that up.

    That said, I never mind being challenged. It may annoy me at first, but it also makes me have to think more deeply about what I'm saying and where I stand.

    I appreciate this blog because I can hear (and state) either side of the argument without getting jumped on. And I hope you didn't feel jumped on by me.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Enesvy,

    Thank you.

    "I appreciate this blog because I can hear (and state) either side of the argument without getting jumped on. And I hope you didn't feel jumped on by me."

    I would further state, if you or anyone feels that someone is getting "jumped on" unfairly, bring it up - point it out.

    I have been wrong before. I will be wrong again. I TRY to be objective in my analysis of criticisms brought against me or this blog. It is what "this" is all about.

    Again thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  60. David -- I apologize if my comments were not clear.

    I applaud what you do on this blog and feel you have been very clear. I started to make the point in my response that "emperical" was not your request, it was deleted/blessed's word, but I was way too tired of the conversation to go back and read every single post to figure out where that started. So, I didn't go there.

    My point was simply that the child touching the stove and got burned was at least a ground for discussion whereas as "I got burned" is just a complaint and not much discussion can happen around that.

    I totally appreciate your fairness and your continued patience on this blog. Sorry I was not clearer in my earlier comment.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Also, deleted/blessed has not in any way been successful in his efforts on my part.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Itcme,

    Thank you. (for the kind words)

    No worries. (about lack of clarity)

    Sorry if I made it sound like he had!

    (implying that blessed had been successful at convincing you I was treating him unfairly)


    TO EVERYONE:

    First, has anyone noticed the title of this post. I just noticed that it reads kind of awkwardly.

    Seems like it should be "...scams reach..." or "...scam reaches..."

    Any grammar folks out there want to take a crack at this for me?

    Can "Nigerian Scams" be treated as a singular subject (as in the plural scams are actually one thing) thus making "reaches" the appropriate word?

    I am beginning to suspect that I am the only one bothered by little details like this... anyone else out there like me? Can't read things without stuff like that jumping out at you?

    *****

    Secondly, I have had some reports that the "new poll" regarding my fair/unfair treatment of blessed/deleted is not displaying for some people. Is anyone else experiencing this? There is not much I can do to correct it, but if enough people are having this problem, I will (and I DREAD the thought of needing to do this) bring it up with google/blogger to see if it is a known issue or an isolated incident. Please let me know.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  63. I still can't vote, it gives me the same message I get if I website is unavailable, I refreshed browser, etc.. still no luck.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Regarding the ads on PT, it was mentioned that these ads promote the very things that PT is denouncing. That can be very true at times. Google ads are generated by Google and run off of keywords or words that it picks up when it crawls a page for information. Therefore, and regrettably, we get a lot of ads for "get rich quick" schemes and other MLMs, how to jump start your MK business, etc. Again, that's how Google ads work to my understanding. The site owner can't control the content of those ads.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I can't vote, either. It says my request cannot be processed. :o(

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hmmm, ok, regarding the inability to vote thing, I do apologize... our technicians are busy (doing their "real" job) at the moment and will get on this right away.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Enesvy,

    "Google ads are generated by Google and run off of keywords or words that it picks up when it crawls a page for information."

    Very True. (succinct to by the way, good job!)

    "The site owner can't control the content of those ads."

    Not true.

    On two counts.

    First, google does allow you to "block" specific urls and specific categories. It is cumbersome (I will admit) and takes considerable diligence... but certainly not more diligence than is currently employed in weeding out comments that disagree with the opinions of that site owner!

    Second, and by a wide margin this is my more emphatic point regarding this subject, PUTTING google ads on a website is a CHOICE that the site owner has COMPLETE control over.

    The site owner is explicit in her condemnation of advertisements of MLMs.

    FROM THE PAGE - "SITE GUIDELINES & RULES"

    "We want Pink Truth to be a welcoming place for those coming out of Mary Kay and other predatory multi-level marketing companies. To that end, we have implemented the following guildelines and rules. "

    ****

    "This site is intended to expose the darker side of Mary Kay, MLMs, and pyramid schemes. Those wishing to extol the virtues of these types of companies should not participate on Pink Truth."

    *****

    "Advertising is not allowed on this site. Pink Truth is not a place for you to sell your goods or services. If someone inquires about a particular product or service, you are welcome to reply. However, blatant advertising will not be tolerated either on the public pages of the site, or via private messaging. On occasion, Pink Truth will permit advertising by selected individuals. This is solely at our discretion and does not mean that you are free to advertise.



    Promoting MLMs or any mlm-related businesses (tools, websites for promoting mlms, etc) is not allowed on Pink Truth. This means there are no links allowed. Violation of this rule is cause for being immediately and permanently banned from the site."

    ******

    All of these are in the guidelines and rules section, right next to ads offering

    "Top MLM Winner Shows How In A Major Video Release-Join Free "

    ------------

    In the "about Pink Truth" page, it says,

    "After seeing thousands of women fall victim to false income claims, misleading marketing materials, and flat-out lies about the business opportunity, Tracy decided to do her part in warning consumers about Mary Kay."

    ********

    My point is this. She is also doing her part to make money by allowing the same "false income claims, misleading marketing materials, and flat-out lies about the business opportunity" a prominent place on her website.

    I call that a conflict of interest.

    Like someone running an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting taking money on the side from Budweiser in exchange for bringing samples of their various beer products to those meetings.

    I have a hard time believing that she is intent on helping people when she is letting the wolves she claims to be fighting post their messages and make their pitches on her site in exchange for a little cash.

    One of my opinions in this whole mess of a debate about who is to blame is that it is the ones who make these outrageous false claims (that Mary Kay corporates 'official literature/position' does NOT back up or support) like "click here to learn how to make millions with xyz MLM" or "click here to find the secret your upline wont tell you". But sharing the blame are people that claim to be "saving" people from these reckless claims only to expose them to it again in a professed "safe" environment.

    To be honest, it makes me sick.

    ReplyDelete
  68. RE: the poll problem

    The problem has been brought to the attention of Google/blogger. It has been reported by other blog operators as well. They are looking into it. Please bear with.

    If we need to re-post the poll after the problem is fixed we will.

    Out of curiosity, is the other poll working? (Rent, own or other?)

    thanks for your patience

    ReplyDelete
  69. Enesvy,

    Finally getting to get back to some of the points you made. Sorry it took so long.

    You quote mkhonesty:

    "Regarding PT, MKHonesty said: "It's the same place where people describe their total ineptitude and then blame it on MK."" (apologies for the double quote)

    And then assert,

    "Well, that was kind. Aren't you glad you're allowed to paint every PTer with the same brush? Oh, wait...I thought that's what you condemned us for doing."

    First of all, in context, he said:

    "I know: Walks like a duck ... must be a duck, Occam's Razor, etc, but consider the source of this "news". It's the same place where people describe their total ineptitude and then blame it on MK. This is the same website that a year ago was saying that Dacia must be sending product to South America, because she lives in Miami."

    mkhonesty was pointing out (as I have) that Pink Truth is not exactly a credible source for news.

    He did NOT paint ALL PT'ers with that brush. He said that PT is a place where that happens. I think we can all agree that the things he mentions happen there. Perhaps if he had suggested that PT ONLY does that, or ALL people (even MOST would fit) on PT do that you would have a case for him painting all of you with the same brush. It seems a bit of a stretch for you to accuse him of painting everyone with the same brush. Just as it would be unfair for me to suggest that you paint all MK'ers with the same brush simply because you are associated with PT.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Dave -

    If you want to treat "Nigerian Scams" as a singular subject, you need to use quotes to indicate that it is being used as a singlar subject; however, it would be better to use "Nigerian Scams Issue" or somthing similar to help lessen the awkwardness. :o)

    As far as the polls, both are giving me an error message.

    ReplyDelete
  71. David,

    I got lost trying to find a different discussion and found this one. ;)

    Regarding MKHonesty's remark: "I know: Walks like a duck ... must be a duck, Occam's Razor, etc, but consider the source of this "news". It's the same place where people describe their total ineptitude and then blame it on MK. This is the same website that a year ago was saying that Dacia must be sending product to South America, because she lives in Miami."

    I understand your dissection of the words and your point that he was saying PT wasn't a credible source for news. But, frankly, if I had used the same language and said, "That 'Truth About Mary Kay' blog is the place where people worship Mary Kay Corporate, so take what you read there with a grain of salt," I'm pretty sure you would take that to mean I am painting all who support this blog as fanatic MKers--whether or not the statement was sandwiched in a sentence with a different purpose. Would you not? If not, then perhaps it is just me.

    Point taken about the Google ads. I was going by what a friend who uses them told me. I will mention it to Tracy. I've never liked them.

    By the way, the poll is taking votes, it's just not then displaying the results. When I refreshed the front page and clicked "show results", it displayed the results for me. Still, it should be able to display them right away.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Enesvy,

    I am not sure that I would have read that to mean you were painting everyone here that way. I would have assumed (as I do with mkhonesty's comment) that it happens often, or can be easily found there(here). I would most likely disagree with you in that assertion (I am sure you are not saying you feel that is the case, just making an example... but, if you were to suggest that, I would say you are wrong. I don't think anyone here worships MKC!)

    I think the overall point to accept/comprehend is that we will all probably over-exaggerate things in the direction we lean. I guess that the checks and balances on THIS site (yes, that was a dig at Pink Truth) is what keeps those exaggerations from getting out of hand.

    I would LOVE to hear what Tracy says.

    Regarding the poll.... we are already at 29 responses to it. I think someone(s) is(are) "cheating" and voting more than once. I really can't wait to see how many votes this poll ends up having!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Regarding the poll, it appears to be working now. FYI, I was able to vote more than once...so it may be moot. I know that on PT, only members can vote on polls, so maybe you want to set yours up with that restriction? Then it would only be logging unique votes once.

    ReplyDelete
  74. speaking the real truthJuly 2, 2008 at 10:21 AM

    I have even seen a google ad for Mary Kay "over there". Also Discover Card, so does that mean she is responsible if people run up debt on that card? She made money on the transaction, so where is her disclaimer that one should use credit wisely?

    My question, why does she need these ads? Doesn't she make money every time someone clicks on them? How much could it cost to run a website. Me thinks she might be making some profit for her pocket I could be wrong, but I could be right.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Actually it can take quite a bit of money to run a website, especially when it comes to bandwidth and how many people are hitting your site. The domain name costs (usually pretty minimal) and then having someone host the site costs (usually monthly). Many of the sites I enjoy ask for donations or have google ads to try to help offset those costs. I wouldn't blame anyone for that.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Speaking the real truth - it can actually be quite cheap to run a website.

    For one like PT with it's own domain name it would be about $10/yr for the domain name.

    Hosting costs vary, especially according to the number of visitors she is using. That said, my current hosting is only $15 a month and that is satisfactory for an average of 100,000 visitors a month.

    Therefore I think it is quite likely she is turning a good level of profit.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Having my site on its own domain is a lot less expensive than using a program like Typepad, for instance. The most expensive hosting I've seen so far was $200/yr. Most hosts I've looked at give the option to pay monthly or annually.

    Domain names typically cost $10/yr unless you are looking at a domain that others might want. For example, www.shadesofpink.com is going for just under $3000! Hence, my domain is www.shadesofpinkblog.com. I bought that one for a steal (less than $10). ;) Do you think the people who bought MY domain thought I might be that desperate for it when I left Wordpress??? LOL!

    ReplyDelete

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 ScamTypes.com (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: balancedmarykay@gmail.com
But you are probably better emailing mk4me: mk4me2@gmail.com