I don't think that the Liquidators have affected my personal business very much to date, but I see that they do have the ability to. It has affected a few of my consultants to a greater degree.
Now this is what does disturb me, even on the anti-mk sites, they concede that there are consultant doing the business that are honest and ethical (based on their opinions) -you can be okay as long as you don't recruit- the liquidatiors do have the ability to do harm by underselling any consultant. I thought the biggest problem was they felt MK was full of unethical practices and behaviors, - how can one justify another unethical behavior which will hurt "good-honest" consultants because you are happy it is sticking it to the Corporation? - It isn't hurting the Company. Mary Kay products are still being sold. The product still being consumed, which means it will continue to be produced. It is hurting the beauty consultant when they try to run their Mk the way the agreement that we sign states. How if you are supporting the liquidators do you feel you are harming the Company? if you really wanted to shut the Company down, you wouldn't want the liquidators either.
The bitterness to do harm to Mary Kay for whatever wrongs (imagined or real) is blurring good judgement and logic. - As long as people are buying MK products (at whatever cost) the product will be produced. The only ones truly affected by the liquidators are the consultants that are out there trying to sell their product at retail. (So I guess unethical behavior is okay as long as it helps one acheive a goal? - isn't that what nsd's, director's and the Company is always accussed of doing?)
There have been consultants that make poor business decisions and then use the liquidators to "balance out" their stock - they are still consultants trying to cheat the system. Buying their prizes and recognition and then hurting others by flooding the market with discounted product. If you were overstocked on your first order or "frontloaded" and feel you don't want to continue with MK, the Company has the 90% buyback and that is a moving year window, so it isn't like you only have one year to make up your mind, whether to stay a consultant or not. - there shouldn't be rewards for individuals that buy their cars, units, top director trips, etc...
Another thing that amazes me is that as I read about the journies of many of the anti-mkers, that many of them admit (almost proudly)how they used the liquidatiors (while they were still consultants) - so perhaps it was their unethical behavior that landed them in the situation they were are/were in.
Am I the only one to see the irony in this whole pro/anit mk debate?
If one actually operated their MK as it is laid out and truly works with a go-give spirit and golden rule attitude, there would be almost none of the problems hat we read about. The one thing we can not change are unethical behavior by people within a company (any company).
I still think that the liquidators are perfectly within their legal rights and provide a useful service. Anything you have that's over the rolling year, you can't send back to MK, and for many ex consultants that is a lot of product and a lot of money. The liquidators help them cut their losses and also help people get products that are no longer being made that they still want.
But really, ethical arguments aside...lawsuits are about law. I see no way that the liquidators are engaged in any illegal practices. I consider the lawsuits to be frivolous.
Liquidators of Stila, Too Faced, DuWop, and some other cosmetic brands. Discontinued or overstocked items go at bargain basement prices. Liquidators abound: Big Lots, for example. I think that also sets a precedent for legality.
Can't disagree whether they are legal or not but I am saying, I could see where they could hurt a consultant.
I know the law is not decided on ethical or unethical but I still feel this is an unethical approach which of course will not effect the legal issues, not a lawyer, so I am not sure of all the legal issues.
However, I do think there should be some sort of FDA regulations on the resale of consumable products.
and the bottom line is, it doesn't affect Mary Kay Corp has much as it affects individual consultants.
This is interesting I really think that MK corporate should lay off of the liquidators since those products are paid for and all is said and done. I DONT think they should be given a warning unless they are current consultants. MK4me is correct when saying it is hurting the consultants more than it is hurting the company. I usually dont agree with PT but in the instance of it harming recruiting I do agree but on a small scale. There are millions of people in the world and the negative aspect of what a potential recruit would see on PT may hamper a director or consultant having someone sign up with the company if they believe everything they hear on that site. MK is a business and they want to protect their best interest so from a business standpoint I can understand why they are doing what they do.
Here is a dilemma: Suppose you are a current consultant. Suppose you do not want to leave MK (and get your 90% back) but your director ordered you a bunch of junk you cannot sell, such as orange lipsticks and foundations that do not match the skin tones of your customer base. To get your 90% back, you have to leave the company. If you keep the product, you can't sell it because your director ordered you the wrong stuff (happens a lot). If you sell it to a liquidator, or ebay it, and get busted, MK will kick you out.
What is that person supposed to do? Sometimes the loss is too big to just take in stride. If you could recoup even some of the money, then you could reinvest it in things your customers actually want. I know it isn't *supposed* to go like that in the first place, but since it does... there seems to be no recourse for these consultants.
That was back in 1995, hon. I've been out for a long time now. Thing was, when she got through using my money to order the wrong stuff, I didn't have any money left to order the right stuff! X(
Posts
I don't think that the Liquidators have affected my personal business very much to date, but I see that they do have the ability to. It has affected a few of my consultants to a greater degree.
ReplyDeleteNow this is what does disturb me, even on the anti-mk sites, they concede that there are consultant doing the business that are honest and ethical (based on their opinions) -you can be okay as long as you don't recruit- the liquidatiors do have the ability to do harm by underselling any consultant.
I thought the biggest problem was they felt MK was full of unethical practices and behaviors, - how can one justify another unethical behavior which will hurt "good-honest" consultants because you are happy it is sticking it to the Corporation? - It isn't hurting the Company. Mary Kay products are still being sold. The product still being consumed, which means it will continue to be produced. It is hurting the beauty consultant when they try to run their Mk the way the agreement that we sign states. How if you are supporting the liquidators do you feel you are harming the Company? if you really wanted to shut the Company down, you wouldn't want the liquidators either.
The bitterness to do harm to Mary Kay for whatever wrongs (imagined or real) is blurring good judgement and logic. - As long as people are buying MK products (at whatever cost) the product will be produced. The only ones truly affected by the liquidators are the consultants that are out there trying to sell their product at retail. (So I guess unethical behavior is okay as long as it helps one acheive a goal? - isn't that what nsd's, director's and the Company is always accussed of doing?)
There have been consultants that make poor business decisions and then use the liquidators to "balance out" their stock - they are still consultants trying to cheat the system. Buying their prizes and recognition and then hurting others by flooding the market with discounted product. If you were overstocked on your first order or "frontloaded" and feel you don't want to continue with MK, the Company has the 90% buyback and that is a moving year window, so it isn't like you only have one year to make up your mind, whether to stay a consultant or not. - there shouldn't be rewards for individuals that buy their cars, units, top director trips, etc...
Another thing that amazes me is that as I read about the journies of many of the anti-mkers, that many of them admit (almost proudly)how they used the liquidatiors (while they were still consultants) - so perhaps it was their unethical behavior that landed them in the situation they were are/were in.
Am I the only one to see the irony in this whole pro/anit mk debate?
If one actually operated their MK as it is laid out and truly works with a go-give spirit and golden rule attitude, there would be almost none of the problems hat we read about. The one thing we can not change are unethical behavior by people within a company (any company).
I still think that the liquidators are perfectly within their legal rights and provide a useful service. Anything you have that's over the rolling year, you can't send back to MK, and for many ex consultants that is a lot of product and a lot of money. The liquidators help them cut their losses and also help people get products that are no longer being made that they still want.
ReplyDeleteBut really, ethical arguments aside...lawsuits are about law. I see no way that the liquidators are engaged in any illegal practices. I consider the lawsuits to be frivolous.
P.S.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.beautycrunch.com
Liquidators of Stila, Too Faced, DuWop, and some other cosmetic brands. Discontinued or overstocked items go at bargain basement prices. Liquidators abound: Big Lots, for example. I think that also sets a precedent for legality.
Can't disagree whether they are legal or not but I am saying, I could see where they could hurt a consultant.
ReplyDeleteI know the law is not decided on ethical or unethical but I still feel this is an unethical approach which of course will not effect the legal issues, not a lawyer, so I am not sure of all the legal issues.
However, I do think there should be some sort of FDA regulations on the resale of consumable products.
and the bottom line is, it doesn't affect Mary Kay Corp has much as it affects individual consultants.
This is interesting I really think that MK corporate should lay off of the liquidators since those products are paid for and all is said and done. I DONT think they should be given a warning unless they are current consultants.
ReplyDeleteMK4me is correct when saying it is hurting the consultants more than it is hurting the company. I usually dont agree with PT but in the instance of it harming recruiting I do agree but on a small scale. There are millions of people in the world and the negative aspect of what a potential recruit would see on PT may hamper a director or consultant having someone sign up with the company if they believe everything they hear on that site.
MK is a business and they want to protect their best interest so from a business standpoint I can understand why they are doing what they do.
Here is a dilemma: Suppose you are a current consultant. Suppose you do not want to leave MK (and get your 90% back) but your director ordered you a bunch of junk you cannot sell, such as orange lipsticks and foundations that do not match the skin tones of your customer base. To get your 90% back, you have to leave the company. If you keep the product, you can't sell it because your director ordered you the wrong stuff (happens a lot). If you sell it to a liquidator, or ebay it, and get busted, MK will kick you out.
ReplyDeleteWhat is that person supposed to do? Sometimes the loss is too big to just take in stride. If you could recoup even some of the money, then you could reinvest it in things your customers actually want. I know it isn't *supposed* to go like that in the first place, but since it does... there seems to be no recourse for these consultants.
Miranda, why don't you place your own orders? Your director doesn't need to place them for you.
ReplyDeleteThat was back in 1995, hon. I've been out for a long time now. Thing was, when she got through using my money to order the wrong stuff, I didn't have any money left to order the right stuff! X(
ReplyDelete