Daydreaming about Success, In Mary Kay and Out.

Get ready for a shocker... no link today!

That's right, I am taking a break from linking to Pink Truth (for today) to bring you a short musing of my own about this whole Mary Kay thing.

I will set this up by telling you about an opinion piece I was reading in an automotive magazine. The article was discussing the way that speeding tickets (and other moving violations) seem to increase (in certain towns and cities) when the economy begins to struggle.

The theory that was posited is that the local government, strapped for cash because of declining property taxes (and other declining revenue streams) "lean on" their police departments to bring in some cash.

Now, I am just as infuriated as the next guy by the thought of my law enforcement (I say my because we all pay taxes for this) department "fund-raising" for the city by ticketing otherwise minor driving offenses while turning a relatively blind eye to other, more serious crimes.

It also stands to reason that there is a direct connection between declining city/town/state revenue and increased citations. Whether it is true that this is intentional or not is likely as difficult to determine as many of the accusations Pink Truth hurls about Mary Kay. In some cases it is probably painfully obvious, in others, anecdotal, at best.

One line that was quoted in the piece was this;

"A lot of police chiefs will tell you the goal is to have nobody speeding through their community, but heaven forbid if it should actually happen - they'd be out of money."

Now, this is a fantastically large can of worms that I am not particularly interested in opening on this site. Although, if you would like to, feel free... just no guarantees on how much time I can devote to 'caring' about your opinions about it!

That said, my thoughts turned to the "evidence" that is so often used in arguments against Mary Kay. They go something like this: "Mary Kay directors say that they only recruit people they believe would be great at Mary Kay, but if you could get them to be honest, they would admit that they secretly wish every client became a team member."

Now, hopefully I have set the stage well enough for my bitter distaste for this line of argument to make sense.

Naturally, there is a very high likelihood that anyone in any industry will have "secret" desires that not only don't line up with their company's declared objectives and values, but are in fact self-destructive to the very person thinking them.

From the Burger King "fry-master"... "... I wish that noone comes in to the store today..." (If he got his wish, day after day, he would be out of a job... of course that may be a good thing too...)

to the Mary Kay Rep.... "... I wish every client I have right now would decide to sell Mary Kay.... I could be a director tomorrow!"

and many, many more in between... probably even YOU.

There is a tendency to "fantasize" about a world where the tedious, slow process of doing whatever it is we do, gets done for us, while we sit idly by and reap the benefits. This, in and of itself is not wrong. Some people daydream about it. No doubt, some people (I believe erroneously) pray for it. Others, and I think this group are a small minority, attempt to make it happen. (picture aforementioned "fry-master" setting the place on fire in hopes that it would keep customers away...)

The thing, I believe that keeps Mary Kay reps in Mary Kay (and away from Pink Truth), the thing that keeps each of us in our career of choice (and not trying to burn down our office building), is the realization that whatever we do, it is going to take persistence, hard work, and frankly, must be earned. It is when people begin believing that the crazy daydream of having things handed to them, unearned, can actually be realized that they end up doing regrettable things... and, inevitably, end up regretting those things.

However, just like we can picture the fry-master offering, "every fry-master daydreams about burning down the Burger King" as his defense... and maybe we can believe that this may or may not be true... the fact of the matter rests squarely on the little problem that only one person (in this story) actually committed arson.

Similarly, when someone on Pink Truth brazenly declares that she lied to her clients/recruits/family members and even herself, then applies the defense, "EVERYone in Mary Kay thinks the way I did... they are all 'in the fog' ", I have to ask, "Really? Everyone?" Because, frankly, it seems unlikely.

Perhaps there are those that daydream of going from "red jacket" to "NSD" in 13 days. Perhaps there are those that pray for this to happen. And clearly, there are some that are willing to lie, cheat and (essentially) steal to make it happen. These are destined for Pink Truth glory. However, leaping from these very probably assumptions to the "everyone is..." or "everyone does..." will give you a hernia.

I will wrap this up with a confession of my own. Every time I see a nice car (Everything from 'standard luxury' like Mercedes, BMW, Infiniti to 'luxury luxury' like Bentley, Rolls Royce to 'insane money luxury/sports' like Lambo, Ferrari) I fantasize about how I could wind up with that car. From insane scenarios like, "imagine if I notice this guy pulling over and I pull over behind him (picture the Ferrari for this one) and ask if everything is okay. turns out everything is fine, but he is SOOO impressed with my kindness that he just gives me the car... right there on the spot... title, registration, everything... and pays for the insurance... and gas... and repairs.

I exaggerated slightly when I said "EVERY" time, but only slightly. I love cars. I wish I had a whole warehouse full of them. I wish I could drive a different car every day for ten years. I wish that Jay Leno and I could compete on a "who has the better collection" level. I daydream, I wish for, I imagine ways that I could make this a reality, but I will always stop short of DOING something that compromises my values to achieve it.

In other words, when my imagination runs wild and I think, "I could steal that car, run away to Mexico, repaint it, and live the rest of my life in lonely seclusion with that beauty..." it stays right there. In my imagination.

Now, the battle will continue to rage about Mary Kay. How many people step across the line of fantasy and imagination (I could be an NSD if...) into the reality of doing regrettable things to achieve those fantasies and imaginations is simply not data that is available to us. What I personally hope this site achieves is becoming a road block (of sorts) preventing people from making that mistake.

Pink Truth (by and large) believes that joining Mary Kay is making that mistake.

I do not. I believe that you can operate a Mary Kay business without making that mistake. But you must guard yourself against the temptation to try to take the easy way out. In Mary Kay and out.

The trouble with Mary Kay - Is Pink Truth on to something?

There is a common consensus, it seems, that Mary Kay is not perfect.

Recently, "objective1" pointed out:

"I never believed Mary Kay should "implode" but I did believe that the injustices, such as those that Judi and Blessed's wife encountered, should be addressed.

and

"I know there is still work to do but this blog and each of your involvments in it is a beacon of hope to finally resolve the issues"

Well that got me thinking.

I guess one way of looking at this blog is that it is the product of me being a guy, and as a guy, I feel the need to fix things.

Maybe that is the case, maybe not. Maybe this is meant to be a place where people can get together and air their differences, maybe it is meant to be more than that.

Maybe, over the course of getting things out in the open and having some genuine back and forth discussion, we have come to a place that we can identify what the problem (or problems) is (are) and fix it (them). Maybe not.

My response to "objective1" was (and still is):

"However, we are still quite a way off.

First, we need to determine exactly what the problem is.

Then, we need to determine a course (or courses) of action that could fix the problem.

Then, we need to get mass support. A few hundred people on a blog is a good start, but 70,000 beauty consultants all saying, "we want _______" is a much stronger voice!"

So, I put it to all of you.

This blog is not even a year old yet. Is it time for us to start "figuring out" some problems? Or do we still need to have open conversations? Do we need more structure? Or is our current style working out well?

What does this website mean to you?

What do you like? What would you like to see? Would you miss it if it was gone?

Digging deeper, what would it need to look like for you to tell your unit about it? If I said, "I want every consultant in Mary Kay to know about this site", what would it need to look like?

If Pink Truth can (effectively) accuse Mary Kay of harboring great secrets because of an unwritten policy of always thinking positive, there must be some truth to it. It would not register if it didn't have an edge. What would it take to create a niche that everyone knew about, where ideas, concerns, and even criticisms could be shared without fear of ostracism?

Think carefully, because, obviously, a free-for-all forum where anyone can say anything is no more the answer than a closely guarded forum that reflects only the opinions of the guardians.

Please, please, please, do not think that you have to wait until you have the perfect solution to comment on this. Please realize that your idea may be shot down here. I am not proposing that this will be easy. Say what you feel. Allow other people to say what they feel. The internet is a powerful tool and I believe we can utilize it to effect some real positive change.

The question is, "How?"

Are ALL Mary Kay ladies scary?

I recently stumbled upon an image that captured a concept about Mary Kay that I have often considered, but have a difficult time summarizing simply.

I found the following political cartoon on the Time website. I am not really sure how to give credit to a cartoonist that has been published online... so I have just replicated the credit they gave... hope that is enough. (If you are having trouble seeing the image, go here

John Cole / The Times Tribune / Cagle Cartoons

So, what incredible revelation about Mary Kay was I able to draw from that?

Glad you asked.

You see, as with anything in life, there are always the ".....maniacs". In this cartoon, there are the "Islamaniacs" and the "Obamaniacs". In Mary Kay there are the "MaryKayniacs", lovingly referred to as KayBots. There are religion nuts in every religion, health nuts, animal rights activist nuts, athletic nuts, car nuts, and on and on.

Most people that belong to a certain subset of society (religious, business, political, etc.) recognize that there are people that take their beliefs or opinions to an extreme. The Christian must suffer the consequences of the abortion clinic bomber's claims of "doing it for Christ". The devout Muslim is plagued by the choices of the "radicals" that plot and execute acts of terror "in the name of Allah". Health conscious people everywhere feel the effects of their "extreme" counterpart's outrageous claims.

To an extent, the vast majority of "us" (the populous of the world) realize that the "freaks" don't speak for the "whole". Religious zealots are not an accurate representation of that religion's beliefs. The "nuts" are a frustrating distraction from the message that the "silent" majority wishes to convey.

Take cliff diving. Most people that cliff dive would probably prefer that very few (if any) people join their sport. It is dangerous and is really a unique specialty sport that is arguably enhanced by the fact that so few people participate. While it could be argued that anyone who leaps from a cliff is a "nut", for the sake of this illustration, let's assume that there is a cliff diver that is "extreme" in his passion for cliff diving... to the extent that he thinks EVERYONE should try it at least once in their life. To spread the "good news" of cliff diving, he is constantly on an aggressive campaign to find new "believers". His zeal drives him to beg and plead with everyone he meets to "at least just climb up to the top of the cliff with me and watch me jump a few times...". When this proves to not really "convert" anyone, he takes it a step further and begins pushing people from the precipice he has lured them to.

I know that is an extreme and unlikely scenario, but we can all imagine how frustrating it would be to the "regular" cliff divers as this guy would probably become the "face" of cliff diving. The ones that prefer to just dive in peace don't get attention from the press.

So there are freaks in every camp. So what? We all knew that already right? Why bring this up?

Good question.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the "freaks" of their particular religious, political or other affiliation get caricatured and "poked fun of". In fact, I think most people will laugh right along. After all, an Obama supporter is not neccessarily an Obamaniac. Also, most people can deal with and tolerate their beliefs being criticized. "It is my belief, it is my opinion. Make fun of it if you will, I will not be moved."

The problem comes in when people start confusing the ".....maniacs" with the (relatively) normal people that believe similarly. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. If someone that is a rectangle (but not a square) gets called a square, they will naturally protest.

Obama Supporter.

Yes, I support Obama. Yes, the Obama supporters that are offended by a silly cartoon are outrageous and extreme. No, I am not one of those. And in fact, most of us are not.

Christian.

Yes, I believe in God and in salvation through Jesus. Yes, the abortion clinic bombers (and all the other zealots) are scary and wrong and in deep need of professional help. No, I am not one of those. And in fact, most of us are not.

Mary Kay Consultant.

Yes, I love Mary Kay. I like selling it, I like representing the company, I like finding other people to sell it as well. Yes, some people representing the company get out of hand and have caused some serious damage to innocent women. No, I am not one of those. And in fact, most of us are not.

The question then, is, are most Mary Kay people "MaryKayniacs"? Or are most Mary Kay people just like sales people in any organization? Passionate about their product and always on the lookout for solid business partnerships?

If any of you have the answer, please let me know. I personally don't think we can know. How do you measure something like that?

How would you like your business opportunity? Well-Done or Raw?

There has been some talk lately here about the differences between MLM and so called, “Conventional” Corporate America. (CCA) In this scenario, I am comparing (primarily) the “entry level” of CCA (as in “team member” or “employee” – not franchise owner or CEO) to the entry level of MLM (as in buying the starter kit or signing the contract).

I think that the differences between these (at least for the purpose of discussion here) can be boiled down to the direct effect each has on the individual.

In the "CCA" companies like Wal-Mart, the distribution of rewards and penalties is pretty even. The person that shows up early every day, sweats out a hard day, offers phenomenal customer service MIGHT get a quarter of a dollar more than the lazy person that is late everyday, never makes an effort and talks nasty about the customers. That is only if the hard working person gets "noticed" by the right people in management. Otherwise, the lazy one (who for some reason always seems to be better at B.S.ing about how hard they work) is often likely to get the raise/promotion.

Similarly, a really talented sales person, someone that really knows the company inside and out, knows the product, and is always creating great matches between the product and the customer is not likely to see a penny more than the person who just shuffles over to a shelf, grabs the first product their hand finds, and says, "here". (or better yet, just points and mumbles something about "over there")

Welcome to retail, right?

But seriously, in that world, you could say that the risks and rewards are "socialized" to all of the bottom level employees. The huge nationwide sales force creates a "norm" and the upper management decides how much they collectively will receive for their effort. It is safe. But fairly unrewarding.

MLM on the other hand is much crueler. Each person involved will have their own unique outcome. In many cases, the "problem" with CCA that I mentioned above is "fixed". The really good, hardworking, friendly, representatives get rewarded for their persistence and diligence. The lazy slacker gets nowhere. (please, please, please note that I am not saying it the other way around... as I am about to explain)

But, because not all who succeed are the hard workers, and not all who fail are lazy losers, you have some very polar extremes.

In the pink corner, you have the ones that have learned how to manipulate the system impeccably. They are so good at it that it is impossible to tell them apart from the ones "doing it right". To speak ill of them directly is blasphemy of the worst kind. They are nearly untouchable. You have met this kind of person in other parts of your life. They are the kind that can say something without actually saying it... so that if you come back later and say, "You said xyz", they can say, "no, no, no... I would NEVER say that, I actually said, "yzx"... you must have misunderstood me". With great care, they spawn miniature versions of themselves. The "mini-me" of course is not AS careful and will get herself in trouble by saying things like "executive pay/part time hours". When (and if) this ever makes it back to the originator, they claim they never said that... and that the person who did say it, 'must have misunderstood'.

In the other corner, you have the "Crusaders for Truth". These are the ones that, unfortunately, were the victims of those in the "pink corner". Some of them were close to the "source". They were seriously manipulated from someone that "knew all the rules" and did a real number on them. Most likely, they were not only burned, they were led into burning others. Others were further from the source. They either got little burns or barely escaped getting burnt, but felt the flame nonetheless... and, understandably, want nothing to do with the flame. The problem is, for these people, this is the only Mary Kay they know. For them, that is not "a part of Mary Kay", it IS Mary Kay.

Between these two extremes, you have everyone else. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people that simply did not work hard enough. Building a client base and/or a team is hard work. Some people simply got overwhelmed and decided that a minimum wage job was a better match for them. (Some, obviously, do much better than minimum wage. I am using minimum wage to say that in some cases even the "worst case scenario" in CCA is better than MK for them) Some decide that they just don’t like sales, or recruiting, or both. Some find the “always on” aspect of things to be undesirable. But on the other side of the coin, some have found great enjoyment in being "personal use/friends and family" consultants. More skin care for less money. Some wanted a "hobby" and lost interest. Some started a hobby and turned it into a thriving business. Some started out with the intention of building big… and have done just that.

In the middle of the two extremes, you find a lot of people that feel (as I do), that Mary Kay, "is what it is". It is a business model. An opportunity. Some see it as a perfect fit for them. Others see no fit at all.

It really all boils down to you.

If you are happier in an environment where you show up at a specific time, do a specific set of things, and get a specific number on your paycheck every other week, may I recommend something in the “CCA” section?

If you prefer to blaze your own trail, and are willing to take the risk that you may blaze a trail that gets you lost or in trouble in exchange for the possibility of discovering something new and exciting (not trying to oversell the opportunity here, just trying to stay in the vein of “trail blazing”!) than I have something in the “MLM” section that you really need to see.

*Note. I am sorry if the title of this post was misleading. I know that I did not mention "well-done" or "raw" in the post at all. And I "created" the title AFTER I wrote the article, so, yeah.

The Conman and the Salesman

One day, two men stroll into your town. They both need to make money to survive.

One has discovered a product that he believes will be so beneficial to the people in your community that he can establish a decent customer base. In fact, he is so confident in his product that he hopes to find a handful of people that he can train as salesman to continue distributing when he moves on to the next town. He starts out by seeking a busy corner of town. He starts up conversations, introduces himself to people, and (more importantly) introduces his product to people. Some are not interested. Some are. The ones that show interest get demonstrations. Some are impressed and place orders. He asks every person that places an order to, “please tell your friends”. As more and more people become familiar with the product he is offering, and point more and more people to him, he is able to move off the busy street corner. He keeps track of the people that bring in the most referrals. When he feels that there is sufficient interest in the product, he brings together the people that seem to be most interested in it and tell them that he is moving to the next town. But he wants a few people to continue servicing his customers in this town and expanding the customer base. He trains them how to “sell” the product, how to resolve potential problems, and how to get referrals from customers that are happy. Once he is satisfied that they will be successful in his absence he moves on to the next town.

The other man has discovered the same product. But the amount of work involved in developing a customer base is quite unsavory to him. The idea of demonstrating the product over and over again is beneath him. Dealing with objections, complaints and other customer service issues seems to big a burden to him. But he does have one talent that he doesn’t mind using. He is very persuasive. As he enters the town, he starts looking for people that might just be susceptible to his brand of persuasion. He finds a handful of people that are looking to make easy money, convinces them of the merits of his product, promises all kinds of things (training, leads, customer service support… anything they ask, he promises that they will get it), and talks them into taking out substantial loans to cover the cost of becoming distributors for him. As you may have guessed, once he has the money in hand, he is gone. Never to be seen again. Remember? The “work” is not worth it to him. There are thousands of towns in the U.S. and, as the saying goes, “there is a sucker born every minute”.

Now let’s just say that the product they were both offering was Mary Kay. Let’s further say that after both men leave town, a crisis develops.

It seems that the handful of people working for the salesman and the handful of people working for the conman have a few disagreements about the product they are selling and more specifically about the support that they get.

The bottom line is that the conman ought to get dragged back into town and forced to repay the money that he (essentially) robbed from these hapless victims. Unfortunately, the only person that can be “reached for comment” is the salesman. The one that actually cares about the product and the success of his team is forced to “answer” for the actions of the conman.

The handful that got conned blast the salesman for being a part of a company that allows “these things to happen”.

He counters, “I didn’t do these things and I don’t support them, but I do really believe in this product.” He also mentions, “The company that manufactures these products will allow you to return your product for 90% of your original investment.”

**

It is an unfortunate truth about human nature that some people will try to “get something for nothing” and will use any opportunity they can to do so.

It is also unfortunate that people that have been burned, because they need to ‘blame someone’, will assign the blame anywhere that it will land. The conman is long gone (or has a bulletproof defense) and so can’t be pressured into making restitution.

The moral of this story?

Same as my purpose for this site.

This is a place that the collective representation of honest salesmen (for MK) can be informed of the tricks of the collective conmen by those that were conned and do their best to resolve the problems created by the aforementioned group of conmen.

Racism

Oh what a world we live in.

How incredibly complex a subject is racism.

The fanatical, bigoted, passionate beliefs of some people still shocks me.

How incredibly and unfathomably ignorant is it to hate someone you don't know, based on a trait as innocuous as the color of their skin.

Yet here we are, in the age of "enlightenment" arguing over what should or should not be considered offensive.

Consider this recent report from CNN's Political Ticker.

Also, check out this video about the same controversial situation.

I hope you will follow the links above to get a better idea of what I am talking about, but in case you don't have time, I will summarize.

CNN reports:

A Japanese cell phone company has pulled one of its television ads that used a monkey that appears to portray Sen. Barack Obama.

The commercial opens with a crowd rallying behind a well-dressed monkey speaking from a podium. The supporters are cheering and waving signs that say “Change.” In the ad, the monkey was encouraging users to change providers.

CNN adds:

The company behind the ad, eMobile Ltd., insists it had no idea of any racial undertones and says the ad was just a nod at Obama’s worldwide popularity.

Eric Gan, president of eMobile, points out that their company’s mascot is a monkey – an animal revered in Japan — and has been used in previous ads.

“When we saw the idea for the first time, it was ‘Hey, you're copying the idea from the presidential election in the U.S.’ Yes, but, you know, that's how you make a presentation. How you make an impact. We thought it quite was interesting,” he said.

Bloggers immediately voiced their disapproval of the ad and accused the company of being racist.

Gan says the company was unaware of how the ad might be interpreted, but “now, of course, we know.”

You really should visit the article, and look at all the comments about this. It is unbelievable. Comments ranging from, "I don't see what the big deal is" (If you watched the video, most of the Japanese people that saw the ad didn't even connect it with Obama at all.) to "Karl Rove must be behind this".

Here is a snapshot

William Ayers July 2nd, 2008 11:19 am ET

Ironically, the monkey has more executive experience and more solid stances on issues than Obama.

W.H. Thomas July 2nd, 2008 11:20 am ET

After spending 1.5 years in Japan, I can honestly say as an African American, that Japanese citizens know very little about racism. It is good to know that Obama is popular in Japan.

Tom July 2nd, 2008 11:20 am ET

Karl Rove nonsense is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

lil July 2nd, 2008 11:21 am ET

Believe me they knew that their were racial undertones they just didnt
care or was trying to make a startment. Either way I dont like it.

not important July 2nd, 2008 11:21 am ET

Maybe they should do an ad about Pearl Harbor? Just rude and stupid ad. Obama should sue them.

joe July 2nd, 2008 11:21 am ET

Karl Rove and republicans must be stooping a new low!

How does something like this get turned into such a big deal? An ad made in Japan, designed for Japanese consumers and aired in Japan accidentally has racial undertones to it. The Japanese company is informed that some people might see it that way. In order to NOT offend anyone, they pull the ad off the air. Done. A little embarrassing, maybe, but does it really call for international finger wagging?

I genuinely think they were paying Obama a compliment. I see nothing in that ad that would suggest that they were trying to subliminally undercut his accomplishments by comparing him to a monkey. Especially when you consider that the monkey is highly revered in that culture.

Now that I have taken the time to "set the stage", I don't have much time to really rant, so I will try to keep it short.

Few things irritate me as much as seeing people that are out there trying to accomplish something take cheap shots from people that apparently have nothing better to do. In this case, it is a cell phone company trying to be creative in their hopes to convince consumers to switch to their company. I am not saying that it is a noble cause or anything, just that they are out there "doing their job" and made a slight misstep. When it was pointed out, they rectified the situation. Why continue to harass them about this?

Some of you may already know where I am going with this.

For those of you still scratching your heads, there is a little website that we talk about here from time to time. It is called Pink Truth. SOME of the people on that site seem to just LOVE to do this very thing. For instance, when Mary Kay donated some items to a holiday gift drive at Christmastime many joined the chorus of criticism suggesting that the gifts were no good, or not genuine enough, or not admissible because they reported the retail value instead of the wholesale value.

So what does the international criticism of this poor Japanese mobile company have to do with Pink Truth and Mary Kay?

Glad you asked.

Today, amidst the usual clatter of unintelligible drivel that is based on conclusions made from bizarre logic, there was this critique from The Scribbler:



Now I am pretty sure that I have seen some very intelligent stuff from "The Scribbler", and in fact would LOVE to have her join the discussion over here. Further, this comment (as with most of her comments) is actually a refreshing shift from the "norm" that you come to expect. Quite well done, really. Quote in italics, picture used for emphasis, makes it clear that pic was not altered, and then makes her point clearly and concisely... something I could even take lessons on.

Nicely done.

But is it necessary? Does it help any of the readers? Does it really accomplish the mission of saving women from the MLM monster? Does it really do anything to demonstrate that MLMs are monsters?

I don't think so. I say if someone wants to appeal to people that share a certain ethnicity by inviting guest speakers OF that ethnicity that is their prerogative. Perhaps a white consultant that is curious about the perspective of a black woman that rose to NSD will want to attend. It does look kind of funny AND it WOULD be deemed racist if it said "and other WHITE NSD's!" Double standard? Maybe. Something to "get up in arms" about? Probably not!

But

It gets better.

"magenta" says:

"OH OH!!!! Is that a RACIAL SLUR or WHAT????!!!!! AHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I'M TELLING!!!!!!!!!! discrimination!!!!! Does this mean that only her "sistahs" can go to this event??? this is one to send to corp and ask them about their discrimination policies!!! off with her head!!!"

"...off with her head!!!"....??????? WHAT? Are YOU kidding me?

"pinkprisonbreak" adds:

"...Honestly, the double standard just kills me!! So her eyes, black NSD's are better and more desirable than white....unbelievable...why does the race card get pulled?"

You got the sense that she thinks that

"...black NSD's are better and more desirable than white..."

???? From THAT???? Seriously????

And by the way, the "race card" gets "pulled" when someone accuses someone else of being racist or using racism. Which is what you guys are doing. So you should ask yourself... and all your friends... why YOU are pulling the race card over this. Not the other way around.

Queen of Section 2 intones:

"It is reversed discrimination. But white people better not complain or they'll be viewed as a white supremacist. "

Uh, maybe you are right... YOU shouldn't be complaining. It says that there will be other Black NSD's there. It doesn't say "White's not welcome".

"chaine2" (who refers to herself as "AA") says it quite nicely:

"...I think it does matter to AA consultants. I was recruited by a lady that was in several MLM's before she got started in MK (she was recruited by an AA national that was recruited by GMB). She confided to me that she didn't like the other MLM's b/c there wasn't a lot of product and/or advertising geared toward AA and also that there weren't a lot of blacks in 'management' positions. She quoted to me that about 20% of the NSD's in MK are black. To an AA that represents a great opportunity to achieve success..."

I severely summarized her comment there, but I think she makes a good point.

Long post, I know (what else is new), but I really want to know what you guys think about all this.

Obviously, racism is not dead. It probably will not be for a long time.

Why (or how) do people find such hate and contempt for other people? (racism question in general)

Was the Japanese ad offensive?

Should people be wasting their time pointing their fingers at this kind of innocuous stuff? The Japanese ad? The "8 hours of power with GMB - and other Black NSD's" concept?

Should I be wasting my time complaining about people that waste their time pointing their fingers at this kind of stuff?

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!

A good laugh for the weekend?

This will be brief I promise. To make up for the recent mini-novel.

"Suzy Q" one of the writers on Pink Truth (This site often talks about the website Pink Truth - to help make you aware of the half-truths and flat out lies they tell) recently wrote a post. I couldn't even tell you what the post was about (something about Mary Kay not really caring about consultants) and I really only read a few lines into it when I stumbled on this little quote,

"I mean, offering to plant a tree for each returned platinum compact is a nice, green thought, but… did you see the “size” of those trees?"

I am not really sure I need to say anything. I will leave you to ponder.

Your success in Mary Kay - Who is responsible?

I must warn you that this post is REALLY long. It is so long that I have hidden it behind the 'click here' link. Please, take a deep breath, tell your boss that you have important work to do, take your laptop out to the pool, or whatever you do and then join the discussion!



An absolutely fantastic discussion has begun on another post and I thought it appropriate to address it.

I think that it can be summed up with – should Mary Kay Corporate track actual sales in awarding prizes or should they continue to award prizes based on ordering with the assumption that the orders are based on sales?

The question, in and of itself, is fairly benign. Ask anyone that is involved in any industry that distributes product and you will probably get a response in the order of, “huh… who cares?”

Warning, semi-boring but quite necessary ‘ground work’ to follow – I will isolate it so you can skim.

Typically speaking, any product that you are using will “get to you” by a channel similar to the following. I will use beverages in this case, and specifically the carbonated variety (Soda, Pop, or Coke depending on where you live) and even more specifically, because everyone is familiar with this brand, I will use Coca Cola brands/products.

First, there will be a concept. Someone, for instance, will say, “I have an idea… let’s make a carbonated beverage with lots of sugar and sell it. (Anyone who knows the story of the origins of Coca-Cola will know that it was not that simple, but please understand I am simplifying for illustration sake and will similarly simplify the roots of Mary Kay momentarily.) That person (or those people) will then begin ‘the process’ of bringing their concept to market. As they develop their business model, there will be many steps that overlap each other in many ways. All of these steps should be planned with their end consumer in mind.

They will have to develop the product. They will have to develop packaging for their product. They will need to develop a brand identity for their product. They will need to create a marketing plan for their product. They will need to advertise their product. Advertising and marketing, although similar and often combined are two different components. They will need to create a channel or method of distributing their product. Then, they will need to continuously evaluate and improve on all of those things in an effort to maintain the demand for their product.

Because of the multitude of various options available to a producer of a product, each one will take on a unique strategy that will set it apart as different – maybe better, maybe worse – from everyone/everything else available. Take McDonalds and Burger King for instance. It is rumored (I don’t have any source for this, but it certainly seems possible) that McDonalds spent millions or possibly billions of dollars studying the demographics of every area that they launched a new location to determine the absolute BEST physical location for that store. Burger King’s strategy? Build a Burger King next to (or across the street from) a McDonalds. I say it seems possible because there is almost always a Burger King a stones throw from a McDonalds. (If anyone know whether this is a myth or not, please let me know) I use this illustration, true or not, to demonstrate that everyone will employ different strategies to accomplish the same outcome.

For those of you that were skimming, we are back!

Mary Kay is no different from any other manufacturer in principle.

They have a product.
They manufacture that product.
They create packaging for that product.
They have a clearly developed brand and brand image.

Where they are unique (compared to many of the other products that we are familiar with) is that they combine their advertising, (a majority of their) marketing, and their distribution into one venue. That is, they entrust the distribution and promotion of their product to individual representatives.

National companies that go the route of advertising spend a lot of money on that venture. I mean A LOT of money goes into advertising on a national level.

Again, if you want, you can just skim the following

For instance, Proctor and Gamble spent $4.8 Billion in 2006 and $5.2 Billion in 2007 in the United States alone. Proctor and Gamble (if you are not familiar with that name) is; Olay, Crest, Pantene, Gillette, Cover Girl, Febreze, Swiffer, Tide, Prilosec (otc), Oral-B, Secret, Clairol, Dayquil, Nyquil, Mr. Clean, Duracell, Iams, Head & Shoulders, Pampers, Charmin, Always, Actonel Rx, Bounty, Herbal Essences, Dawn, Old Spice, Tampax, Downy, Vicks, Max Factor, Pur, Folgers, Aussie, Cascade, ThermaCare, Metamucil, Pepto-Bismol, Pringles, Dolce & Gabbana, Braun, Gain, Tag, Puffs, Cheer, Fibersure, Luvs, Bounce and Fixodent – by ‘megabrand’ ordered from most money spent to least. They spent $394 Million on their Olay brand and a comparatively modest $11.3 Million on the Fixodent name.

In 2007, AT&T spent $3.2 Billion and Verizon and GM each spent $3.0 Billion. L’Oreal spent $1.6 Billion.

A LOT OF MONEY GOES INTO ADVERTISING.

Mary Kay has chosen to invest (spend if you will) this money on their consultants instead of on TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazines, etc. Citing (among other things) that they want their product to be demonstrated in a one-on-one setting with the accompanying personal attention to detail, they have for the most part shunned traditional advertising and methods of distribution.

Is anyone still with me? I hope so! Now we can get into the question.

The simple question of whether or not Mary Kay should distribute/market in this manner is not worth discussing, because it IS the way they do it, and any contrary suggestion should be brought up with them.

However, the question of whether Mary Kay should track individual sales (rather than simply inventory orders) boils down to a more direct and accusatory question. Who is responsible when a consultant loses money?

One point of view is very keenly summed up by commentator ‘Enesvy’ (previously known as ‘Black Nova’

My issue is more human. I see MKC as a bus. They built the bus, they maintain the bus, they even provide drivers. People board the bus believing it to be safe and trusting those who introduce them to it and convince them to get on. Naive? Yes. But I can't fault anyone for not being a complete cynic and believing what somone with supposed experience in riding and/or driving that bus has to say. So when that bus is in an accident because it's not well-built, it has flaws, people riding it get hurt. My point of view is that MKC should be doing everything it can to ensure that their IBCs aren't hurt by their business model.

The other point of view – expressed by me… composed ‘just now’ is

There is nothing wrong with the bus. There is adequate training and information available to potential drivers. Potential drivers are ‘tested’ before being allowed to drive. The problem comes when a driver decides that she has thought of an excellent shortcut or ignores her training and starts speeding and cutting corners. Mary Kay Corporate, upon discovering such renegade drivers will implement disciplinary action, but just like the police here in Los Angeles (God bless them, they have a hard job), they WILL NOT get everyone that breaks the law. Many people have been badly injured and even killed on the streets of L.A. IF the LAPD and CHP could do a perfect job of policing this city, that number would be drastically reduced (or hypothetically eliminated entirely). IF Mary Kay could be everywhere at all times and hear every presentation, they would similarly meet (or come close to) the standard of perfection where no one is ever hurt.

As you have hopefully picked up from this, there are a lot of variables, and it is easy to get distracted by one element or another.

But this conversation is very important to have, so let us establish what this discussion is about, and what it is not about.

Let us assume for this conversation that Mary Kay Corporate is NOT out to get consultants. Evil as they may seem to some, it is illogical to assume that a corporation would exist simply to torment and ruin the lives of thousands of women.

Further, let us understand that, like it or not, they ARE a business. They are not a non-profit organization. Their primary purpose and reason for existence is to make money. This is NOT a bad thing. It also does not contradict their goal of enriching women’s lives. However, they are not here to just GIVE money away. If you want a piece of this pie, you are going to have to earn it. Please notice that I did not say you are going to have to work hard for it. I could sign up for Mary Kay and then go in my back yard and dig holes all day and night for years (hard work for sure – right!) and still not EARN anything.

The question here, is, “Who is responsible for the wreckage?”

From one direction, you have the ‘personal responsibility’ crowd. No matter how tantalizing something looks, no matter how much you trust someone that is suggesting something to you, no matter how influential and convincing someone is, you should always evaluate whether or not it is a good match for you. “I trust everyone. It's the devil inside them I don't trust.”

From the other direction, you have the ‘corporate responsibility’ crowd. Mary Kay is making a lot of money. If even one person loses money so that they can line their pockets (the rich get richer while the poor get poorer) with MORE money, they should be ashamed of themselves and do everything they can to make it right.

A philosophical discussion to be sure.

I can predict right now that the majority of those claiming ‘personal responsibility’ will be well adjusted within the Mary Kay structure while those claiming ‘corporate responsibility’ will be those that (at best) did not do well with Mary Kay.

Although I am sure that it is quite clear which ‘side of the isle*’ I am on, I will leave the question open ended for now.

*I know that ‘aisle’ is the correct word here, but I wish I were on a beautiful island right now – so I felt it appropriate to express my view as a ‘side’ of the ‘isle’ that I am on in my mind!

Where do YOU stand?

What do Mary Kay Consultants have in common with College Professors?

For those of you that don't know this, I like to read. One opinion writer that I enjoy reading (because of his style and thought process, not necessarily because I agree with everything he says) is Stanley Fish. He recently wrote a piece about the correlation between professors in colleges and their political views. Specifically, whether or not their political views have any bearing on their job in the classroom. You can read the article I am talking about here. Although you will find that it is actually an article in response to responses he received about another article he wrote. Follow? Good!

So, what does this have to do with Mary Kay? Glad you asked!

There is a section in it that I would like to call attention to because he addresses people claiming that it is impossible for professors to separate their personal views from their role as teachers. The arguments made seem similar to the ones made on this site and on Pink Truth that it is impossible to "do" Mary Kay without lying and cheating. Because Mr. Fish has done such a great job addressing this, and because I would like to share a favorite author of mine with all of you, I present the following excerpt.

The most often voiced objection to my position is that it urges something no one could perform. R.C. declares that “faculty are indeed human and thus tend to inject their own opinions into their teaching.” Mark in A2 agrees: “People inevitably bring their personal politics (and other views) into their role as teachers” and “to say otherwise is either naïve or ignorant.”

Evidence for these assertions is largely anecdotal and is often accompanied by statements of incredulity: “It’s pretty clear that Stanley Fish has either been living under a rock for the past ten years or doesn’t know how to add 2 plus 2.” Haven’t I read about all those professors who inject their liberal biases into the classroom and insist on ideological conformity? Yes, I have. There is an entire apparatus dedicated to searching them out and making sure their sins are publicized. But this little “parade of horribles” does not stand for the whole and, as I have already noted, the responses to the column provide evidence (also anecdotal) in the other direction.

The non-anecdotal argument for the it-can’t-be-done objection is philosophical. Teachers come to their task burdened by religious and political commitments, moral philosophies and world views, and they can’t simply unburden themselves when they walk into the classroom. “It is a fallacy to think that the ‘academic’ world is or can be isolated from the political world.”

But isolation from the political world is not required. All that is required is the quite ordinary ability to distinguish between contexts and the decorums appropriate to them. When you enter an institutional setting — an office, a corporate boardroom, a cruise ship, a square dance, an athletic event — the concerns to which you are responsive belong to the setting, and you comport yourself accordingly. Rather then asking, “What do my political and religious views tell me to do?”, you ask, “What do the protocols of this particular endeavor or occasion tell me to do?”

The setting of the classroom is no different, even though the materials you encounter are often fraught with moral and political questions to which you would give very definite answers were you confronted by them in your life outside the academy. As long as you are in the classroom, and as long as you recognize the classroom as a place with its own constituitive demands, those questions will be seen as items in an intellectual landscape and not as challenges to which you directly and personally respond.

Of course, somewhere behind what you are doing will be the larger commitments and world views that make you what you are, but for the duration of your professional performance, those commitments will be on the back burner, exerting some influence to be sure (I am not insisting on purity), but not enough to blur the distinction, basic to the very rationale for higher education, between what you would do were you in the ballot box and what you are pledged to do by virtue of the contract you have signed and the salary you are paid.

That salary is provided on the assumption that in return you will carry out certain duties and refrain from others that belong to different enterprises. If you are unwilling to do so or believe that a general human infirmity prevents you from doing so — a belief that will follow from setting up an impossible standard and concluding from the general failure to live up to it that all distinctions are null and void — then in all conscience you should resign. You should not take the money while you run away from your responsibilities, and you should certainly not excuse yourself for having done so by saying, or thinking, “I couldn’t help it.” Yes you can. Hundreds of thousands do every day. As Susanne Woods put it, “Professionalism is professionalism whatever the profession, and a university professor who actively proselytizes (whatever the political beliefs) is not doing her job any more than a physician who insists on telling me about the virtues of the free market while I’m hooked to an EKG.”

Simply replace the professors with Mary Kay Consultants and the behavior of injecting personal political views with deceitful and manipulative practices and the words above amount to (for me) a resounding, "that is what I have been trying to say"!

I would like to highlight the following:

"Professionalism is professionalism whatever the profession..."

"But this little “parade of horribles” does not stand for the whole and, as I have already noted, the responses to the column provide evidence (also anecdotal) in the other direction."

What do you think?

About politics and professors.

About Stanley Fish - and this article.

About Mary Kay Consultants and ethics.

What do Mary Kay inc. and Ford Motor Co. have in common?

I read something today that made me smile. It was the kind of smile you get when you see something that confirms something that you have known, something that you have tried to explain to others, and yet something that they can not understand EVEN IF they could see what you were looking at.

Curious? Good. Read on.

I was reading a Time article: "Ford No Longer Expects '09 Rebound" and was almost to the end when I stumbled on this intriguing paragraph.

"Production cuts hurt revenues, because automakers book vehicles as sold once they leave the factory."

Since this blog's inception, and more so since the addition of Shay as an author, we have often pointed out the many times that Pink Truth decries standard business operating procedures as dark, devious schemes perpetrated by the insidious beast Mary Kay.

One such business practice (across most product distribution industries) is considering an item "sold" once it has been shipped from the factory. What the distributor does with it from there is their business. So it is with Ford, so it is with Mary Kay.

I know this is nothing new or groundbreaking for most of the readers here, but hopefully some of the intelligent readers on that site will begin to see the twisted, illogical reasoning that makes that site so indigestible and migrate over here so that we can get some of their perspectives in the mix here.

Where is all this money coming from?

I have been thinking about this for some time, and finally thought it would be appropriate to ask it out loud.

I have read on some other sites (Pink Truth, Pink Lighthouse, etc.) about the interesting predicaments that people got themselves into with Mary Kay.

Most recently for instance, JTA on Pink Truth says,

"And I can’t even begin to imagine the finances. I’ve said before but it bears repeating that I have seen with my own eyes the basement full of product. Boxes and boxes. How does one continue when a person they care so much for is in this situation? If it were a one in a million case, I could have helped her and moved past it. But sadly it is rampant and I could not ignore it any longer."

An unnamed husband writes,

"My wife has been in Mary Kay for 4 years. In that time she has lost over $30K. I had to remortgage the house to keep her from going bankrupt, but still she's back at it. Her credit is going to max again in the next few months. This time I will lose the house. I have a good job, but she's losing it faster than I can make it."

And there are others that have mentioned spending even MORE than this. My question is, "Where did you get all this money in the first place?" Is your husband doing THAT well at his job that you were able to not only NOT make money, but at the same time LOSE tens of thousands of dollars?

To compound the problem, and almost in answer to my question above, many of the "exit testimonials" describe how GREAT their life is now that they can stay at home with their kids all day and "just be a mom". Look, I have no problem with that, AND if you family's finances allow you to do it, I actually recommend it. What better way to raise a child/children than to be right there with them as they grow up?

But this raises a very curious, but so far unasked question. Why did you join MK in the first place? Why did you, upon realizing how much work it was, not stop at that point? And probably the most important question, why do you feel the need (now that you are out) to turn your nose up at the ones that NEED that extra income for their family? It is a sad commentary on your compassion (or lack thereof) that you are willing and able to trump yourself as somehow "better than" just because you and your family had the ability and means to lose thousands of dollars on a venture and then, when you finally "had enough" just quit and go back to "life as usual".

And those of you that went from Mary Kay to your magical "high paying" careers, don't think you are exempt. You are telling me that you were working making 6 figures in the corporate world, you loved your great job and normal hours, but for some reason you left all that completely, jumped into Mary Kay with both feet, AND THEN discovered that Mary Kay was "not for you" or a "horrible trap designed to lure you into debt" so you went back to your lucrative position in Corporate America? I don't necessarily buy into this whole "Obama is an elitist" controversy, but I would say that your attitude definitely stinks of elitism.

Look, if you had something good going before... and you fell for the "grass is greener on the other side" sentiments that we all feel from time to time... then realized that you had it better before, that is GOOD. You learned what some of us like to call a lesson. For some of you it took you years (or decades) and for some of you it cost thousands (or tens of thousands). But why not thank God (or whatever or whomever YOU thank when things go well) that you HAVE that kind of money to "lose" on your education.

Have you ever heard of people spending massive gobs of cash on a college degree (let's say doctor or lawyer just to be super generic) only to realize that they just couldn't handle BEING a doctor or a lawyer? Does that mean that BEING a doctor or lawyer is a BAD thing? Should they start a website called "doctors suck" or "lawyers suck"? Does that mean that all doctors and lawyers are shams that are just "pretending" or "faking it until they make it"?

Listen, you had a bad experience. It probably had a little to do with the people that brought you in. It probably had a little to do with the fact that you really wanted it to be as good as they (the ones that were lying to you because they had been lied to themselves) told you it was. The thing is that most of the people on THIS site and others like it have been trying to tell you that we are truly sorry that happened to you. It is NOT how we operate, it is NOT the way Mary Kay is supposed to be done. We want the people that did this to you to "get busted" just as much as you do. But the bottom line is you are not HELPING anyone by stirring up controversy. If YOU had a bad experience, most likely you KNOW the NAME of the person or people that perpetrated the unethical behavior. REPORT THEM. Call Mary Kay. Tell THEM what happened. Use REAL peoples names, give specific examples, and then move on... "lesson learned". You do not need "PT Therapy". Be thankful that you can spend time with your kids and then SPEND TIME WITH YOUR KIDS instead of spending time telling the anonymous blogosphere how much you love that you COULD be spending time with your kids.

Oh, and since you have SO much money now, I have a great investment opportunity for you... it is a bridge in... never mind, you wouldn't be interested in my stupid bridge.

Let's talk about it.

For general discussion.

Is Mary Kay:

1. A pyramid scheme
2. A Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) plan
3. A Dual-Marketing plan
4. A Direct Marketing plan
5. Something else

Why?

Enriching Women's Lives?

Eversleigh brings up a good point (among many).

"I must ask..." "....in what way has MK enriched anyone's life? I ask in all sincerity. I see it as a company who sells skin care and make up and perfumes, amoung other things. How does this truly enrich anyone's life? And please don't say self esteem. Self esteem can be gotten from any other company where someone succeeds. What is it about MK that makes it so wonderful?

I had a horrible start with MK. I was lied to, manipulated...."

For the sake of this post, I will ask that everyone refrain from describing their personal experience. We will assume (and suspend discussion about) that some people have had excellent experiences while others had horrible experiences. The vast majority most likely fall somewhere in the middle of the two most extreme scenarios. That is NOT what is at stake in this conversation.

The company most definitely makes the claim, "Enriching Women's Lives". It is on every box that gets delivered to the house. It is on the website. It is without a doubt, a "core value" of the company.

But in what way is it meant to be interpreted?

Does this meant that the aim of Mary Kay Corporate is to Enrich Women's Lives?
Does it mean that the Consultant's aim is to Enrich Women's Lives?
Are both of the above statements accurate?


In either case, in what way is this achieved? Exactly which Women's Lives are being Enriched? In what way are they being Enriched? Do THEY realize their Lives are being Enriched?

Before you get started, I would like to point to one very important observation.

Eversleigh, speaking about self-esteem, says, "... can be gotten from any other company where..." as a reason for NOT citing self esteem as a way in which Mary Kay "Enriches Women's Lives". It is my opinion that this criteria should be thrown out.

Arguably, there are many qualities of any company that may be reflected in other companies without it necessarily being the express intention of those other companies. In other words, the fact that one company calls attention to a characteristic that is emphasized in its operations does not automatically disqualify other companies from embodying that same characteristic merely because they do not call attention to it.

Think for instance about BMW's claim to be the "Ultimate Driving Experience". Their goal is to create a vehicle that is exactly that. The Ultimate Driving Experience. It can't be said that it is NOT their goal just because someone else is also trying to create the ultimate driving experience. I would feel pretty safe in saying that any company that endeavors to create a car or a line of cars (Mercedes, Lexus, Toyota, Honda - not to mention Ferrari or Lamborghini) has the high-minded goal of providing THEIR customers with the ultimate driving experience.

As evidenced by the plethora of publications (Motor Trend, Car and Driver, etc) that analyze and expound on which vehicles THEY feel are the best, it can certainly be argued that BMW is NOT always and in all situations the "Ultimate Driving Experience" they aim to be. Sometimes someone else is better. Some people could indeed express encountering horrible experiences with BMW. Perhaps brought on by mistakes made by the Bavarian company in its manufacturing plant, its distribution centers, its showrooms, or its service departments. Or potentially brought on by user error. I am sure someone out there, unaccustomed to the handling or the braking of a more powerful vehicle, drove their shiny new 'bimer into a ditch and, because the CAR was the only thing new to the equation, blamed their accident on the "feel" of BMW. Subsequently, they may never drive another BMW and will likely tell everyone they know to, "avoid those death traps".

Back to Mary Kay and the question at hand.

"...in what way has MK enriched anyone's life? I ask in all sincerity. I see it as a company who sells skin care and make up and perfumes, amoung other things. How does this truly enrich anyone's life?"

This is an excellent question, and I hope to get some excellent responses.

Women in a man's world - Part II

For many years, men did not allow even the thought of women running a business to enter their mind. When women did enter the “work force”, they were secretaries, assistants, nurses, maids, etc.

The logic (if you could call it that) was that they were incapable of handling the “big boy” parts of business. Ironically, one of these parts of business would be thinking logically instead of emotionally.

Another crucial element that men seemed convinced women could not handle was the crushing blow of utter failure and all that goes with it. You see many business endeavors fail. For a woman who processes things in a more emotional way than her male counterpart, this would be devastating.

You have heard the saying I am sure, “It’s not personal, its just business”. Because women tend to me more relational than men, it followed that they would not have the necessary ability to separate “business” relationships from “personal” relationships, and so would be more likely to ruin the business to save the relationship.

Also, as we learned in Anchor Man, “their periods attract bears”.

So here we are, years later and what are the most common themes on Pink Truth?

“Mary Kay Corporate (mkcorpse as they maturely refer to it) is just trying to make money off of us”

“Now that I don’t sell as much my director/recruiter NEVER calls me”

“I ALWAYS read contracts before I sign them, but it just FELT SOOO good to be “one of the gals” that I just went ahead and signed it”

“I never made any money because I just couldn’t charge FULL price to my FRIENDS and FAMILY”

“SHE told me it was going to be easy and I TRUSTED her because she was my FRIEND”

“How DARE the company that I am a distributor for tell ME what to wear”

“Updating product is not to remain relevant in a demanding market, it is a SCAM to make me buy more inventory”

“No one can sell Mary Kay because the market is saturated”

Times are changing and many women are competing and competing well in what was once known as a “man’s world”. However, if you want any chance of being taken seriously, you MUST distance yourself from the continuous ignorant drivel coming from Pink Truth. If you read between the lines of what is being said over there, the message is that women can’t succeed so they shouldn’t even try.

For those of you “just tuning in” to this blog, that may be wondering whether Mary Kay is “right” for you. Let me give it to you as simple as possible.



1. You are signing up to be a distributor for a company.
2. That company (Mary Kay) is NOT a non-profit. They are in business to make money.
3. Although they are UNIQUE in the quality of wanting to “enrich women’s lives” WHILE making money, this is NOT their PURPOSE. Their purpose is to make money. (As with any business)
4. Although the company places no restrictions on the level you can reach, the fact of the matter is that you have a very small chance of making it to the “top”. The good news here is that anyone CAN make it. The bad news is YOU may not.
5. It is going to take work. A lot of work. Hard work. A lot of hard work. And then more work. Please do not think that it will be “easy”. If someone is telling you it will be easy, you are a fool to believe them.

I know that most of my readers do not subject MK or its assigns to these inane criticisms but I wonder if perhaps some of the readers from PT would care to comment on this. What do you call yourselves? Lurkers? Care to “come out” and play?

Women can't survive in a man's world...

It is interesting to me that the majority of the comments that come in on any site - pro-, anti-, or otherwise - demonstrate a total lack of understanding of how business works.

It is sadly ironic to me that the one thing that Mary Kay Ash aimed to do - offer women an opportunity to compete in a predominantly "man's" world - is the one thing that participants and ex-participants balk at.

To sum it up, it sounds like this to me:

- "I am woman, I am strong, get out of my way..."
- "I am going to crush the competition..."
- "Wait, what? I have to make how many phone calls?"
- "I did AAALLLLL this work, and nobody is buying from me..."
- "The problem can't be me... I am great.... it must be something else..."
- "It's my directors fault"
- "It's Mary Kay's fault"
- "I am going to go back to what I was doing before... it was easier - at least there if I don't get results I still get a paycheck"

Sorry Mary Kay Ash, despite everything that you and your company have done to demonstrate that woman CAN compete in the general market, women are still copping out.

There are two kinds of people in this world…

Seriously.

If you look at the entire 6.7 BILLION (aprox.) people that currently occupy our globe you can split them into two groups.

Curious how I can make such a claim?

Click the link and find out.




This is actually a trivial exercise that hopefully will strongly illustrate a solid truth.

The TRUTH is that you can divide the population into two neat categories in many different ways. Those that are younger than 30 and those that are 30 and over. (pick any age) Those that are currently married and those that are not… you get the idea.

There are also tendencies that we all have. Some of us get stressed because of something as small as a shoelace breaking while others can amass $100,000 in debt and sleep like a baby every night.

Some people make decisions based on how the wind is blowing that day while others can’t pick a soda (“pop” for some of you – “coke” for the rest of you) from the vending machine without weighing the “pros” and “cons” of the decision.

Naturally, when we (generic we) bring our myriad various nuances into a venture (say, “Mary Kay” for instance) they don’t just “go away”.

Selfish people that join Mary Kay will most likely be selfish in Mary Kay.
Greedy people that join Mary Kay will most likely be greedy in Mary Kay.
Stressed people that join Mary Kay will most likely be stressed in Mary Kay.
Dishonest people that join Mary Kay will most likely be dishonest in Mary Kay.

So for those of you out there that claim that Mary Kay corrupted you… talk to me. What were you like before? In what way did Mary Kay lay its spell on you? How did you realize it? In what way were you different than before? How did you manage to get out and what steps have you taken to go back to the way you were?

Does it sound like I don’t believe that Mary Kay is a soul-sucking, false god-worshiping, cult? I don’t. But I am open to hear all cases. Do you really mean to tell me that a bunch of “pink” loving ladies turned you into an evil, manipulative, conniving psycho? Please… do tell.

I am all ears.

It's a new month!

Can you believe it's March already??

What are some of your goals or plans for your business this month?

Hubby started a new work schedule (2nd shift) that will make doing evening SCC's challenging, but I am going to focus on morning SCC's and for SCC's on his days off. My goal is for 2 per week.

Does anyone else want to share their plans for this month?

It's Your Life!

How do you measure success?

We have certainly all seen those people that are undeniably “successful”. They have money, notoriety and live the life they always dreamed they could.

We have seen the success stories of people that overcame great obstacles (and odds) to lead an extraordinary life that many people who have no obstacles will never realize.

Surely, some of you, have met someone that is not famous, wealthy or even “well off”… but, they exemplify the epitome of success.

The question then is, “What is success?”

Now it is clear that some things are socially accepted as signs of success.

Money.

Fame.

Legacy.

When you get to the end of your life and it is “game over”, what will make you say, “I was successful”?

Obviously, even by our own standards, there is always the possibility of being MORE successful.

How do you plan on becoming MORE successful? Today? This month? This quarter? This year?