Jury Rules Against Touch of Pink in Case Brought by Mary Kay - what will it mean to us (consultants). I am happy to hear this verdict. Perhaps this verdict will help shut down other liquidators and make a dent in ebay and craiglist.
It will be great not to have to worry about our clients trying to save a buck finding this discounted (perhaps old or outdated product) and then coming back to us with complaints. I had one of my clients a few months ago purchase some sunless tanning because all I have is the new subtle tanning and the poor dear ended up with 4 that she paid for and then had to pay s/h on top of it. She told me the explanation date was 1996. She said it was watery and was turning brown and didn't tan her at all. She said she would never try to save a buck again as she knew I always gave her new product in perfect shape.
I see no need for the liquidatiors. If one decides MK is not right for them, they can use the Company buyback. As for consultants wanting get rid of products, now the playing field will be leveled. Any of us that acheives Court of Sales honestly, by selling our products to our clients will not have to stand beside someone who is receiving the same award for buying the award and selling the product to TOP.
I personally am so pleased that Mary Kay pursued this. I do feel if it had been allowed to continue it would have eventually impacted (negatively) all of us the do have a good customer base that we sell our products to.
PT implies that many top directors use TOP to dump product so they can buy more so that they can acheive these high production numbers- well if there is any truth to this, I guess they better get selling their products to real clients now, or get recognized for what they actually do, like the rest of us. PTers are upset because if MK is able to get the list of the consultants that are using the liquidatiors that they will now terminate their agreements. Well, so be it.. It is clearly stated - so if they actively, often, and knowingly violate their agreements, they deserve to be terminated. What is so unfair about that? Many, many of us operate withing the guidleines of our agreements, so why shouldn't the ones that choose to not be punished for wrong doing?
I don't see how some can say that Mary Kay is hurting ibc by doing this and actually without the liquidators - MK because of the 90% buyback may end up getting hit the hardest. I do believe the Company took this approach to help the ibc and directors. I think the entity that will most feel the financial impact is MK Corp and I believe they are willing to do that to help assure the best interesting of the ibc's.
I doubt it will do anything but help recruiting either. If new potentials realize the liquidators are going to be gone, that means less competition and a better opportunity to be able to sell products to the real deal client. (It all seems good to me).
I for one, am happy they did and I am very pleased with the verdict.
It will be nice to work from an even playing field. I am sure there will probably an appeal but I hope nothing changes. Woo Hoo-
Posts
So what was the outcome or what does each party do now?
ReplyDeleteDo you have a link to this?
There's a link on PT. I think the judge still has to make his final ruling.
ReplyDeleteI agree Miranda or the website would have been taken down its still up so for those who want to get things from them I guess they still can. When I leave work I will type my feelings about this ruling and see if you (or anyone else agrees or disagrees)
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about this ruling. Im not "crazy pink" so I feel sorry for the liquidators if they ever have to shut down their site, and for those who hate MK who want to support those who dont have consultant agreements with the company I see nothing wrong with it. On the other hand it stops women from getting old product and having customer service at their fingertips and
ReplyDeleteit helps new consultants and old to have more customers. I dont think that it will come back to haunt MK as PT thinks but I do agree
with PT (dont throw the tomatoes gang) that its about recruiting not the product being sold. I cant think of any other reason they would care since the product is already paid for. MK corporate does not want the opportunity to go anywhere or be tainted. Im more on the pro MK side of this but for those who dont have an agreement with the company they are not doing anything wrong.
One of the things that really does disgust me as I read the comments on pt is how many of them are complaining that now it will be tough for consultants to buy their prizes and then get rid of their inventory or top directors doing this. - When we sign our agreement, we know we are not allowed to mass market or sell on ebay or in a retail establishment. So the ones that knowingly and willingly go against their agreement for rewards really have no room to complain. I would never want to stand in front of a crowd knowing I had "cheated" to get there. I would feel like such a thief and liar knowing most of the others actually did the work to get the reward. And quite frankly - I don't like the fact that if I go out and sell $45,000 retail product to be recognized for Court of Sales that I am standing next to a person who bought the product and then liquidated it - it insults what I have done.
ReplyDeleteAs far as only being about recruiting, I totally disagree. I don't want my clients to be shopping from a online website to save a buck or two when I don't know what they are getting and I have worked hard for many years to build my client base, the right way, honestly and ethical... then some yaho wants to come along and buy tons of product and then just look for some avenue to dump it.
As I said one of my clients paid decent money to get crap. If she didn't know what the product was like when it was good, it very easily could have turned her off MK all together. fortunately, it just made her realize having a consultant she can trust is better than saving a few cents.
Also had a few new clients that had gotten junk off a liquidator and didn't like the colors so then they call me and want to exhange it. ummm - no sorry, you didn't pay retail for it and I didn't sell it to you - so it isn't my problem.
I also hope this helps directors think twice about frontloading new ibc with large orders. If the new ibc must move their product to retail clients- and their only safety net is to return it to MK for a 90% buyback, maybe those directors that are screwing people over will realize, it isn't worth it to bring them in huge and then have it going back to MK since they will have no other way to get rid of it. If they aren't over stocked - even if they decide not to continue their mk - it allows them to sell of what they have if they want to leave the door open for rejoining in the future.
It will hopefully be a deterrent to those that want to buy product and earn there star prizes but than go and liquidate the product. Now perhaps they will not buy product that they don't need because they will have to sell it ethically or return it to the Company and be out of MK.
The directors that frontload for a big commission check will realize if the consultnat can't sell it and has way too much product that nice big commission check she got from the Company is going to be going back to the Company.
I am still in shock. I must have been living my life in a bubble because I have been shocked by some of the practices of directors and ibc's, I have read about on pt. I never would have even fathomed doing some of the stuff. It is very distrubing to me to see how some people will abuse the system. -
I will continue to say it again and again. If one operates their MK as it is suppose to be operated and books appointments and sells the product and occassional adds a team member, orders product as they need it and not to win prizes and honestly treats others as they wish to be treated. Everything works the way it should.
I would be very, very happy to see all the liquidators closed. I don't feel as strongly about exconsultants listing individual items on ebay just to get rid of what they have left. But to take it to a point of running a business and only giving the person a pitence of what they paid for it so they can make a huge profit is sleazy. Since TOP reports huge earnings, then why don't they pay more to the "poor" people who are liquidating the products. Just as pt accusses Mk - they same goes for TOP and other liquiadators, they are in it to make money. TOP is laughing all the way to the bank as they give consultants and exconsultants far less then the people would get if they used the 90% buyback that Mary Kay offers and at the same time hurting consultants that are working their mk by selling their products thru facials and shows at retail.
Okay, sorry about the rant, can you tell this gets under my skin.
Mk4me I knew this would get under your skin. We can agree to disagree about the recruiting part.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the stories of directors dumping and selling inventory to these liquidators is being overly exaggerated on PT. I think its more consultants. Im glad that we agree about people who dont have a consultant agreement selling on ebay or another site. After reading your comments about how hard you have worked (and others as well) and then having the liquidator take a chance of giving MK a bad name or the person getting product that is not quality has made me rethink what I stated. I see your point of view and if I had a large unit and had been a director I guess I would feel the same way. Especially when you have taken the time to train consultants and they may have lost a potential customer to a liquidator. I stand corrected
I for one am glad about it. I have never sold anything to a liquidator and have never planned to. If you are the type of consultant who does things by the rules that MK states on your agreement, then this ruling does not change anything for you. But if you are the type of consultant that sells to liquidators then it WILL be bad for you. I dont understand why PT wants all consultants to believe that now all of a suddent this ruling will ruin everyones business. This ruleing can ONLY be bad for those that planned on breaking the guidelines in the agreement in the first place, it is not bad for those that have always followed the rules.
ReplyDeletePTs claim that now MK can tell you who to sell your product to is silly. MK has always maintained that we should sell our products to CUSTOMERS, not other retailers. So to say that now all of a suddent they will be able to do this is crazy. Ruling or not, this is always the way it was supposed to be.
It bothers me when I see product being sold on Ebay, product that I KNOW MK has not manufactured in 10 or more years. Anyone who buys that is getting a low rate product, and it reflects on MK. If a product has been discontinued for a while and someone wants it, I tell that customer that it is no longer available and if they do find someone with it, it may not be fit to use. So they buy at thier own risk from a liquidator, but I am not gonna give them a refund or exchange for something I did not sell.
If people want to be in the business of selling MK then they need to sign up and be consultants, plain and simple. If a consulant doesnt want to sell MK anymore for whatever reason, she needs to send her product back to the company and get what she can for it, plain and simple.
Directors need to quit frontloading and make sure that new consultants understand how to move this product and not focus so much on recruiting only.
I dont feel bad for liquidators at all. I sell my product at retail with no shipping to my customers. So when people buy at a discount form a liquidator but then pay shipping, they really are not getting that much of a discount in my opinion.
Overall I dont think the cusotmers get the best deal from those types of places.
As related news, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reopened the trademark infringement lawsuit against Google for selling trademarks as keywords that trigger ads.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429676298