The Humor found in Hypocrisy

I would like to do more demonstrations but I would like to start with the Article about the TOP lawsuit.

I have been reading some of the comments from the negative site and actually found it amusing. Why? Because they want to have it both ways. I have seen so many things that conflict each other I will try to articulate and not babble but it isn't going to be as smooth as I would like it to be..

Let me start with my opinion. Am I glad MK went after TOP, yes, for my sake and the sake of any consultant. If we are running our business properly, not over buying and selling our products to our clients, we have no need for places like TOP. When a director or consultant that purchased their unit, a car, etc dishonestly.. then she is able to liquidate product and put it out on the market where clients of other good and honest consultants may see it and want to purchase it off that site because it is cheaper? Who is being harmed by this? IMHO, the honest consultant or director running her business by the rules of our agreement. Secondly, actually the person liquidating to TOP because TOP pays them sooo little they are basically screwing those who according to the complainers have already been screwed but TOP is making plenty of money at the expense of the people selling product to them. Many pt posters think it is so great that the owners of TOP make so much money running such a good business - hmmm .. why is it okay for Top to make money as a Company screwing the liquidation consultant them giving them squat for their product, if they are making so much money, then why didn't they pay more for it to the consultant selling it? But pters have so many problems because Mary Kay, the Company operates to make money??

Thought... if there is no place to liquidate products, maybe the dishonest consultants/directors will stop buying too much product because the only way to get rid of it would be to sell it the way the rest of us do. Interesting thought, huh?(that would be by facials, parties, catalogue sales,etc.. imagine that, all of us doing it right.) - They way the Company was set up to operate.

To show what I am saying here is a quote from one of the posters, vintage gold,
"not to mention that many Directors who were "faking it till they made it" bought their Directorships by liquidating with TOP. All those fake Directors have no one to sell to now." (does anyone think I feel sorry for them - ummm not...)

Now here is a quote and well, am I the only one that thinks she sounds unstable?
StrikeAPoseRosie |2009-10-20 13:20:25
"Girls- it is time for ACTION! What can we do??? Start an all day calling spree to directors telling them how corrupt their company is? Demoralize the ranks? Secretly attend meetings and ask directors questions in front of all the guests that point out MK's biggest flaws? Sneak around career conference and hang up signs in the stalls that proclaim the awesomeness of PT? Go to meetings and lurk around outside sticking fliers with MK facts on the windshields of all the cars in the parking lot? Flood face book for a day with messages about MK and MLM crimes? Call MK Corpse all day and night and flood their lines? Start ordering fake orders on Directors websites? Let's get original and DO SOMETHING ALREADY!!! Other ideas???
how about sending anonymous letters to the HUSBANDS to *check their family's credit rating* I know a bunch of Directors that would crap a brick if their husband knew about their secret credit cards. That would be fun...." scary

Nice... they are mad at Mary Kay Corp. for shutting down TOP, so then lets go do all sorts of mean things to any consultant and director we can Internet stalk because we aren't happy with corporate so let's go hurt the consultants?

I thought consultants had to be at least 18 to sign an agreement but these ideas sound like they came from a 5 grader.

What is another major complaint on that site? There are no really clients...except whenever r.b. defends anything - it is they have an almost NIQ, Cadillac drivers, Court of Sales Winners, who sold lots of product, very successful.so who were these people selling to if there were no real clients. Read enough over there and you have them saying... oh I sold alot of product....I just couldn't make any money...
then I couldn't sell anything, no one wanted Mary Kay... and then the one I liked best, oh, I could sell the product and made lots of money but I just didn't like not being told the truth...probably good because if a accountant or cpa had to admit not being able to make money with a product we buy at a 50% discount... one might wonder how credible she would be on any other point. so... now I read this statement:
"First, I'm amazed with how much $ TOP made! Wow now that's a successful business plan!" - now if TOP made that much money from the product they purchased from ex consultants.... obviously there were people aka real customers that are ready and willing to buy it, because if no one was willing to buy it, TOPS wouldn't be making any money....so if most of these top customers couldn't get it on TOP - they would be buying it from a REAL consultant who was doing things the right way.

R.B. says that the only reason MK wants to shut down TOP is because of recruiting... I have had unit members come to me and want to know what to tell there clients when they stumble on TOP and say that they are cheaper and they are afraid they will loose their clients. I haven't had one consultant come to me afraid she was going to loose a recruit over it.... so.... say what you want... but it is hurting sales far more than recruiting. And then if people do get expired crap - then it tarnishes our reputation and I don't like that.

Before this gets too long, in closing... another comment, "I did not get the impression that they were affiliated with Mary Kay in ANY WAY. Only a complete moron would think that they are" of course there is more on this but the point is that if you READ the TOP site it says it is not affiliated with MK..(!!if one reads it!!)..stay with me... many of them are mad because TOP can't tell consultants about about the 90% buyback that MK offers... why should they have to... it is written on the MK website, on lots of MK info.... I don't hear pt'ers calling their posters morons for not having read the Mary Kay website.

Wow, if you read pt long enough, for every point they prove, keep reading because it will be unproved soon enough.

More on the Lawsuit

I am no lawyer and don't know exactly how all court cases work. I normally would not encourage anyone to read pt but I do think I will make an exception. I would love to hear more on everyone's take on this.

When deciding a jury, don't both lawyers have to agree on the jurors? It is amazing that because the verdict went against top that the jurors were all morons and the judge was paid off. Even if the judge was paid off, isn't it the jury that decides the outcome and then the judge sets the "punishment"?

My goodness tempers are flaring all over the place over on that site.

One of my hopes in this situation is that if directors, consultants, or nsd's know except for the 90% buyback from the Company that there will be no way to recoup your $$ except thru honest selling of the product that perhaps the directors that do frontload will stop for fear that they will just end up with a great big chargeback if the consultant can't sell the product and allow the ibc to build their inventory as they build their client base.

More in the Courts

As I apologized in advance, I have had a very full weekend and starting to try to get back into the swing of things... so thanks to MK honesty a little more in the news...

April 4, 2009 8:28 AM
mkhonesty said...
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. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429676298

Jury Rules Against Touch of Pink in Case

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-

Touch of Pink Cosmetics Lawsuit

I am sure by now that most everyone reading this blog has heard of the lawsuit MK is bringing against Touch of Pink Cosmetics and the Webers.

I have read the lawsuit. 70+ pages of fun, to be sure. (That was sarcasm, BTW).

The suit is mainly about Trademark infringement, but it also brings up several other points as well.

• The lawsuit alleges that the Webers are knowingly encouraging IBC's to violate the terms of their contracts.
• Products purchased through ToP are not covered by the MK guarantee, therefore ToP is potentially fostering ill-will for MK with their (ToP) customers. (For example, if a ToP customer wants to return a product to MK, it is not covered, so the result could be ill-will from the customer and damaging to MK's reputation.)
• ToP also carries non-MK products, and that could be confusing to customers.
• MK wants ToP's records so MK can find out which IBC's are supplying ToP with merchandise.

I have also read the commentary on the anti-MK sites. The general consensus is that the poor Webers are being wrongly persecuted and MK doesn't have a case.

I disagree on both counts.

Since I am not a lawyer, I am not going to argue the legal strength of the lawsuit. The courts will decide that. There may be readers that have a legal background - by all means, share your views if that is the case.

I will, however, express my views on other matters, since I cannot express them on the anti-Mk sites.

There are 2 things I find puzzling:

• The Webers are applauded for helping IBC's violate their contracts. Isn't that one of the things the anti-MKers villify Directors for doing?
• The Webers give 50% of wholesale for products, and they are seen as wonderful; yet MK offers a 90% of wholesale buyback and they are villified for this.

There is more I want to say, but I will post this much so the discussion will get rolling. I will add more later tonight.

Please give your views on this lawsuit, no matter which side you are on.