Is it a Lie?

Since this question was asked, I thought perhaps this poster may have wanted an answer...so I would like to do my good deed for the day.
"pinkpinkustink said: (she is quoting sommeone)
Everyone makes 50% commission on their sales (from a brand new consultant to a National Sales Director)" she goes on and says, "LIES, LIES......
Why do Directors lie like this? Directors get an additional 13% commission form their own orders, which means they actually purchase their products at a 63% discount!
WHY THE LIES OF OMISSION!!!!! "

I see flawed logic in her statement. When anyone places a product order from the Company, we all ibc, sd, or nsd receive a 50% (if the $200/minimum order or the earned discount is in place). Period. That is the truth. Now, a director will be paid a commission on the amount of unit production. This amount can be 9% or 13% depending on the unit production. - and according to pt all directors receive chargebacks monthly which will reduce or even wipe out (according to pt sources) the commission. So there is no guarantee what a director will get as far as unit commission. When an order is placed it is at 50% off at the time of purchase. The commission that is earned is paid the following month -

Spin it any way - all receive a 50% discount when we purchase the products, a director does not receive a 63% discount when placing the products. So I say there is no lie of omission, it is just an attempt to once again twist the facts. And we do purchase our products at 50% off retail. If the products are then sold at retail, one will earn 50% profit. It might not all be spendable profit, and after subtracting samples, etc... the net profit may be reduced to less that 50% - but the truth is we do purchase the products at a 50% discount and when selling the product at retail we do earn 50%. These are the simple facts.

Update on Pink Truth's attempt to silence their critics (this site) with false copyright infringement claims

Well, I was waiting to see what action (if any) blogger would take regarding the alleged copyright infringement.

As you may or may not have noticed, I went through the posts alleging copyright infringement and removed any infringing content that I could see.

I also posted a note on the ones that had (apparently) no such infringing content essentially asking blogger to define what exactly was being labeled as infringing.

As the weekend passed and none of the posts were removed, I assumed that this action had proved sufficient. However, as of this writing, I see that it was not.

Now, I know that I can counter notify blogger that the content is indeed legitimate. And I might just do that. However, as Sean (at Franchise Pick) points out, this would amount to "standing up for my "right" to make fun of those who make fun of Mary Kay" (quote is from Franchise Pick website, no copyright infringement intended) This (to me) seems a bit petty.

I have not yet decided what I will do about all of this. I believe that there needs to be a place where the lies that are told on Pink Truth can be exposed. I hope that this site will continue to provide a venue for that. I do not feel that the dozen (less one) posts that were removed are all that crucial to the spirit of exposing those lies.

I am currently leaning toward doing nothing. It is truly sad that Tracy feels so threatened by the truth that she would stoop to this level of bullying and harassing with such obvious deception. Nonetheless, I am beginning to feel that the best thing to do is to not do anything at all.

By the way, and in the interest of full disclosure, as I have read and educated myself on the subject, I believe that the full screen, screenshot that a few of you may have seen could have been construed as a copyright violation, particularly with my encouragement to all of you to not visit Pink Truth. Worthy of a DMCA take-down notice? Not really. Technical violation? Possibly.

Finally, let me apologize for the sudden sparsity of posting lately. I believe that I will be needing to change the schedule of posting here. It seems that all of the regular authors, myself included, have been quite busy lately. I think that I may begin posting more like once a week than trying to produce something daily. Still trying to figure out what works best for the goals/purposes of this site.

Please let me know what you think. What do you want from this site? What do you like? What is important? What can you do without?

Update on Pink Truth's Outrageous Claim of Copyright Infringement

On Saturday, I informed all of you that someone claiming to be from Pink Truth (but without so much as a signature) alleged that I have "infringed" and "violated" their copyrights on this site. (Link - Pink Truth Threatens Balanced Mary Kay)

Now, as I assured you all in my last post, the very nature of my use of images and text from that website is clearly not a violation or infringement. Nonetheless, even as I contemplated what to do in order to ensure that I would not find myself being forced into a courtroom to discuss this, I received an email from blogger (the ones that host this blog), indicating that someone has, indeed, claimed that "content in your blog allegedly infringes upon the copyrights of others".

The following posts are the ones that are being called into question:

(For your convenience, I have labeled them all as accurately as possible)

Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 1
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 2
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 3
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 4
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 5
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 6
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 7
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 8
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 9
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 10
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 11
Pink Truth Lies About Copyright Infringement 12

Here is the part that I find most interesting:

We are asking that you please remove the allegedly infringing content in
your blog. If you do not do this within the next 3 days (by 10/2/08), we
will be forced to remove the posts in question. If we did not do so, we
would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its
merits.

Here is the thing. If "blogger" who is owned by google, does not want to deal with a claim of copyright infringement, "regardless of its merits", I have to wonder, why would I?

They conclude with:

"We can reinstate this content into your blog upon receipt of a counter
notification pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of
the DMCA."

I have not yet decided what I will do about this. My life is fairly busy right now and I have other "drama" cooking in my "real" life. But in the meantime, I want to keep all of you up to date.

I am particularly interested in making sure that everyone sees clearly the pathetic tactics and maneuverings that someone who is afraid to be completely truthful will stoop to in order to maintain the cloak of lies that she must constantly perpetuate in order for her jaded world view to continue to seem "true".

I now put it to you, my readers. What should I do?

Special thanks to those of you that have already emailed me with your findings on this subject.

Pink Truth Threatens Balanced Mary Kay with Copyright "Violation" and "Infringement"

Greetings Balanced Mary Kay Readers,

I suspect that what I am about to share with all of you will come as no surprise to most of you. Nonetheless, I have chosen to be completely transparent with all of you, my readers, about what is going on.

I am, unfortunately, faced with a dilemma. This dilemma involves deciding between doing what I know is right and risking a legal battle that would most likely be awarded to whoever has more time and money – or – allowing something I know to be wrong to prevail in order to “play by their rules” and stay safely away from the potential of facing frivolous litigation. Unfortunately, thanks to the way our law is currently written, right and wrong will probably have less to do with this decision than money and time. As the adage goes, “The golden rule prevails, the one with the most gold makes the rules”.

As most of you are aware, at 12:01 AM (PDT) Friday, September 26, 2008 I posted a screenshot of PinkTruth.com’s most recent attack on Mary Kay. The intention of posting this image, naturally, was to allow discussion about the claims represented in that post. I also explained that I would make every effort to provide similar images on a daily basis.

Shortly after 9:00 AM (PDT) Friday, September 26, 2008 I received the following email:

from Pink Truth pinktruth@gmail.com
to This information removed because a private email address that has never been posted on this site was used to deliver this message to me.
date Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:04 AM
subject Copyright infringement
mailed-by gmail.com

It's come to my attention that you're taking screenshots of pages of Pink Truth material and posting it for Balanced Mary Kay readers. That's a copyright violation, as I own the rights to the material and have not given you permission to post it. Please remove the infringing material immediately, and in the future, refrain from using PInk Truth's content without my express permission.

Now a few notes about this.

First of all, I am not an attorney, and I don’t claim to have a full grasp on copyright law.
Second, keeping the above in mind, I am extremely confident that this use of screenshots is NOT a copyright violation.
However, because of the first statement, and because I have not yet received legal counsel about this, I have chosen to err on the side of caution.

It is unfortunate that the people spreading lies about Mary Kay, ironically on a website with the name “truth” in the title, are so afraid of any scrutiny of their assertions that they would resort to ambiguous and unsubstantiated threats about “copyright infringement” to prevent their lies from being exposed.

I do not take kindly to being manipulated.
I firmly believe that Pink Truth is spreading malicious lies about Mary Kay.
I wholeheartedly intend to find a way to expose their lies for what they are.
I will, starting immediately, begin looking for the solution to this problem.
In the meantime, I ask for your patience.
I also would ask that – if you have any knowledge on this subject or could offer legal advice, recommendations or potential safeguards to consider – you contact me at balancedmarykay@gmail.com

Balanced Mary Kay will continue offering the pros and cons, the good and the bad of Mary Kay. As always, all are welcome to participate and we welcome everyone’s opinion. Please keep in mind that we STILL do not allow opinions to be expressed as facts… even if doing so is necessary for your “style” of self expression.

Now, what do you think about this?

It is obvious that someone from Pink Truth is reading this site. What would you like to say to them?

Someone claiming to own the “rights to the material” on Pink Truth is suggesting that using an image of their work for the purpose of criticism (as I have done) is “a copyright violation”. However, I think that the U.S. Copyright Office – Title 17, U. S. Code, Section 107 clearly disagrees. What do you think?

In my opinion, this feature is important. Possibly crucial. Do you agree? Is this worth putting the energy into? Should I just give in, roll over and allow them to continue spreading vicious lies about Mary Kay unchecked? What do you think?

I know that some of you have not yet created a profile. I am sorry for the inconvenience, but I hope that you will take this opportunity to log in and weigh in on this important decision.

Thank you all for your support and continued patience.

Pink Truth calls Mary Kay a Scam, as usual, Can't Deliver any evidence

What does it take to convey the truth about a situation to people who stubbornly refuse to consider that they may be wrong?

Take for instance, this latest lament from "SuzyQ" of Pink Truth.

"Oh, I wish I had the magic words! Just what does it take to get the message across to the pink believers that MK is a scam? What part don't they get?"

She follows this up with 13 "short reminders" allegedly in hopes of convincing "pink believers" that Mary Kay is a scam.

With the exception of (maybe) the 13th example, none of her "reminders" come anywhere near demonstrating that Mary Kay is a scam.

She concludes,

"Decided to stop at 13 as that is the Mary Kay sacred number. Please. You can not make it in MLM. Read and listen. Watch and learn. I promise you, your dream is carved in sand."

Here is an interesting thought about all this.

What is the real problem here?

We recently discussed (thanks to shadesofpink) the "proliferation of misinformation".

Consider two different consultants. For the sake of argument, let's assume both of them started Mary Kay at about the same time, were "in" for about the same amount of time, and ultimately decided to stop representing the Mary Kay brand.

Both sat under the same director, were recruited by the same recruiter, and had, basically, the same "version" of the opportunity presented to them.

One of them, like "SuzyQ", was caught up in the enthusiasm and energy of a charismatic leader, took away her own version of the key selling points, and went about selling the "omg-incredible-amazing-perfect-infallible-opportunity" in her own way.

Unfortunately for her (person 1) there were a lot more people in this world that were more like person 2 than she had expected.

The second one, realizing that there is no such thing as "too good to be true" wanted all the information. When "they" said, "no quotas", she asked, "what if I never sell anything?" When "they" said, "best selling brand in the U.S.", she wanted to know, "what is that based on?"

They both were convinced to give this thing a go.

The first one went in headfirst, like Pete Rose. (AD anyone?)


The second one "took some convincing".

In this story, it didn't work out for either one of them.

But which one do you think ended up in debt?

Which one, do you suppose, burned some relationship bridges and is now bitter at the entire company?

And finally, the reason I am so openly hostile to the majority of Pink Truth members, which one do you think is now on a smear site parroting vicious lies that she hasn't taken the time to verify?

Now please hear me. I do not know anything about SuzyQ. To be perfectly honest, I do not even do that good of a job keeping track of who's who on that site. I do not know what her Mary Kay experience was like. Please don't get distracted by that.

My point here is simply this.

"SuzyQ" just posted, antagonistically, that Mary Kay is a scam.

Her "defense" of this assertion is riddled with lies for one. (no, not the Mary Kay kind, the Pink Truth kind) It also (even if her lies were true) does not in any way defend the premise that Mary Kay is a scam.

No wonder her "brand" of Mary Kay hate (her and the ones that think like her) is never well defended on objective sites like this one. I guarantee that if she were to post that on this site, she would eventually realize that she has no clue what she is talking about and say, "just go visit pinktruth.com".

And this is the site that is supposed to be promoting the "Truth about Mary Kay"?

Pathetic.

Pink Truth: Mary Kay Lies - a mini-series (Part 7 of 7) Mary Kay Didn't Put a Gun To Your Head

This is part 7 of a 7 part series. For those of you that thought we would never make it through all of these horrible, terrible, atrocious lies, we are at the end. The last one.

For those of you that were/are starting to get tired or bored with these "lame" and "boring" lies, this one should really put a pep in your step!

In fact, this lie is SO good, I am going to make you click on the little "click here to read the whole thing" link.

Trust me, I promise you... It will be worth it!



Ok, you all made it past "the jump" and are here now. I am sorry that I am making you work so hard for this... and I really hope that you think it is worth the effort.

Now remember, we are discussing the LIES that Mary Kay people (kaybots if you will) tell.

So this next statement... ready for this... is ((gasp)) a lie....

Ok? Everyone tracking.

This is a lie.

Alright, I think you are all on the same page.

....

Here it is:

"No one put a gun to your head!"

((pause for laughter))

I know, I know... okay... calm down... no really... please, no comments about spewing your coffee on your monitor... no seriously... people, settle... aw forget it..


(((pause for more laughter))) ((wait for composure))

That, ladies and gentlemen, that, is a lie.

Come on. Pink Truth. Seriously? Are ANY of you going to "come out" and tell me, with a straight face, that your Mary Kay recruiter held a gun to your head?

Please.

Anyway... in the interest of hearing this one out:

"Maybe the biggest fallacy of all in Mary Kay is this statement by the pro-Mary Kay crowd as a defense for any of the wrongs that happen. They contend that women should have said “no” to anything they didn’t want to do. They had free will and should have exercised it. The truth is that Mary Kay trains women on mind games used to exploit needs and weaknesses in women, and they train women to not accept “no” as an answer. No is “a request for more information” in the Mary Kay world and they will stop at nothing to get you to change that no into a yes. So while there may be no physical gun to your head in Mary Kay, the emotional torture that you will be put through is just as scary and effective."

Oh... I see. "...there may be no physical gun to your head..." That's better. But wait what is this "emotional torture" thing?

Now look, I know all of you are warming up your "personal responsibility" keys on your laptop... and to be perfectly honest, I can't blame you.

I mean really, I am not sure how many different ways it can be illustrated that just about anyone you meet is liable to try to convince you to do something you don't want to do. Sometimes, they will have your best interest at heart and it will still lead to disaster. Other times, they will be plotting your ruin for their gain, yet somehow it will turn out to be the best thing to happen to you.

But, just this once, let's think outside that box.

Since it seems that most people (that end up really, really pissed off at Mary Kay) don't really want to read things and they (because of their desperate situation, or any of a number of other things) believed, wholeheartedly, the very nice, convincing, professional woman that said, "trust me and give me your money".

Shouldn't all of you that work your business ethically and honestly have to suffer because of this?

Shouldn't you all bear the brunt of daily abuse at the hands of a smear site that says that your business, the company you work for, and you personally are evil, condescending, manipulative liars?

And really, why would you complain about that? I mean, if there are people in different states, saying the same exact lies, doesn't that mean that you must be also? And don't even try to tell me that the fact that you know people in different states that don't lie negates that "inconvenient truth".

What you really ought to do is give Mary Kay a call. Tell them that unless you see a complete and total end to all abuse, all manipulation, all deception across the entire sales force, you are going to quit and join the "blind with pink rage" minions in decrying the awful atrocities against humanity that this company commits on a daily basis.

((whew))

(aside to "blessed" aka "deleted") Settle down, that was sarcasm... I have not given into the crazy side of the force... yet.

Right, so that is all seven of the alleged lies that Mary Kay tells. There are plenty more in the comments section if you care to go check it for yourself. If you would like to quote one of your favorite Pink Truth "fav's" and whether or not you feel it is a lie, you can do that here.

And let's be realistic. There are lies told. Some accidental. Some intentional. Some negligible. Some pretty serious.

If you are considering a career in Mary Kay (or any new business venture) Please, Please, Please do your homework. Ask questions. Feel free to be a royal pain in the @$$. If you are putting your money into something, you better make sure that you really, really know what the deal is. What are you agreeing to. What are your options to "get out" if things don't go according to plan.

Seriously. This is what we call common sense.

Pink Truth: Mary Kay Lies - a mini-series (Part 6 of 7) Executive income for part time hours

This is part 6 of a 7 part series. Pink Truth made a list of their favorite Mary Kay lies and we have been examining to see just how accurate it is for Pink Truth to call these lies.

While many of the "lies" we have examined so far are, well, "debatable" at best - and it seems that we have managed to point out more lies from the Pink Truth crowd, as they try to pin their unique spin on "all" or "the vast majority" of Mary Kay - this lie is (correct me if I am wrong) most certainly a lie.

Executive income for part time hours

Just as it’s a lie that you can do Mary Kay in a few hours a week, it’s an even bigger lie that you can make an executive income in Mary Kay with part-time hours. Almost no one makes an executive income in Mary Kay to begin with . And those who do are easily working 50 to 60 hours a week, most of that during what many would call prime “family time”… nights and weekends when the spouse and kids are not at work or school and would love to see mom.

Now again, it is (and I can't emphasize this enough) NOT a lie that you can "do" Mary Kay in a few hours a week. Don't expect to see any huge results, but beyond the shadow of a doubt, Pink Truth is LYING when they say that you CAN'T "do" Mary Kay in a few hours a week.

Another Pink Truth lie?

"Almost no one makes an executive income in Mary Kay to begin with ."

"Comparatively speaking", perhaps. Like, if you say, compared to the hundreds of thousands of women in Mary Kay, almost no one is making 'executive income'... however, just like many Mary Kay reps neglect to properly explain the "best selling brand" thing, they don't say that, do they? They say,

"Almost no one makes an executive income in Mary Kay to begin with ."

And that is a lie. Period. (sorry to be blunt, but since we are on the subject of lies..)

So, people do make executive income in Mary Kay.

Also, people can "do" Mary Kay in a few hours a week. (Again, please don't expect any fantastic results from this, but if that is the time input you would like to commit to, there are no rules barring you from doing so, and you most likely will see some results.)

So what is the lie here?

The lie is when you combine both of these elements. When you say, "You can earn an executive income with just a few hours a week." That is a lie.

But my question is:

How often is this really said? And how many people really believe it?

So far the only genuine "lie" that has been posited by the Pink Truth post called "My Favorite Mary Kay Lies" is this one. And whenever you really press an "anti-mker" about this one, this is not a real complaint. I really can't imagine that very many people actually try to convince people of this. And even harder to believe is that people really buy it.

Is it possible that people here "Mary Kay... blah blah blah ... executive income... blah blah blah ... Mary Kay ... blah blah blah ... part time hours ... blah blah blah ... Mary Kay" and, later, when they are processing everything they just heard, this somehow stitches together into "Mary Kay is awesome because you can earn an executive income with part time hours"?

How about it? Any of you ever heard someone say that you can earn an executive income working part time hours?

Were you told this?

Did you believe it?

Do you ever tell people one or the other of these? (Part time hours? Executive income?)

Does anyone know the actual statistic or the real truth behind any of the "more millionaires, more 6 figure incomes, etc" stories?

It does seem to me that most companies have one (1) CEO and maybe a few other well paid 'upper management' types, so while it is not as grandiose as it may seem, the fact that Mary Kay has paid "x" number of women "$yyy,yyy" they qualify to make this claim. Is this perhaps the grounds from which this selling point rises? Does anyone know?

*****

On a side note, did anyone else notice the incredibly powerful, borderline poisonous way in which Tracy manipulatively throws this one in:

"...easily working 50 to 60 hours a week, most of that during what many would call prime “family time”… nights and weekends when the spouse and kids are not at work or school and would love to see mom."

This may just be my own personal hatred (I know, strong word, but I really hate this) of manipulation and manipulative tactics. Whether it is an MK recruiter that uses the "shouldn't you spend more time with your kids" or the "I hate Mary Kay" misanthropist that uses it, it is ugly. Very ugly.

Is it just me? Did that bother anyone else?

***

Pink Truth: Mary Kay Lies - a mini-series (Part 5 of 7) All Statistics are Lies

This is part 5 of a 7 part series. We are diving right into Pink Truth's "favorite" Mary Kay lies and making some interesting discoveries along the way.

Today's "lie" has a very distinct irony to it.

Any statistic about success in Mary Kay (more women making six figures, more women millionaires, etc.)

"Recruiters use these made up statistics to entice women into Mary Kay. None of them are true. Mary Kay is not the “best selling brand.” But for a few select individuals, women in Mary Kay aren’t making anything close to an executive income. Women aren’t “promoting themselves” when they’re ready… they’re just trying to tread water and hope they don’t lose their teams and units. Did you ever wonder why no one presents any proof for these statistics or claims? It’s because the proof doesn’t exist and these claims are completely fabricated, but repeated with vigor by those attempting to recruit you."

I will let you guys pick apart the specific "statistics" listed here and discuss in what context they are true and in which they are lies. For example, that Mary Kay is the "best selling brand", is obviously not true. But, stated in the correct context, with the proper disclaimers, it is certainly a very strong and accurate selling point for the company. (And yes, all you contrary disparagers, they use sales to consultants to determines sales volume, and yes, that is the standard they use to compare to other companies, and no, that does not make the claim any less true or significant.)

What I find interesting here, is the self-righteous, holier-than-thou way in which Pink Truth scoffs at misusing statistics in the very same post that they misuse (and I use that term very casually) their own favorite statistic. "99% of women in Mary Kay lose money." Not only is the statistic applied very loosely to Mary Kay (in the original publication they take it from), it is also completely taken out of context. Remember I mentioned irony? Check it out, here is what Tracy (or at least I am still under the assumption this was written by Tracy) said about Mary Kay consultant's misuse of statistics... consider how relevant it is (and much more passionate than I could ever be) when redirected at HER misuse of HER personal favorite stat-*cough*lie*cough*-istic:

"Did you ever wonder why no one presents any proof for these statistics or claims? It’s because the proof doesn’t exist and these claims are completely fabricated, but repeated with vigor by those attempting to recruit you."

Ironic, no? (I though it was)

Also, there's this:

"None of them are true."

*ahem* Tracy... wanna help me out again? What was that thing you said?

"Did you ever wonder why no one presents any proof for these statistics or claims? It’s because the proof doesn’t exist and these claims are completely fabricated, but repeated with vigor by those attempting to recruit you."

Right... that's what I was thinking too.... it was, all, on the tip of my tongue, ya know? Couldn't have said it better myself... thanks.

((sigh))

Right, so, what do all of you think?

Do recruiters misuse statistics? (HA! Is the Pope Catholic!?)
Which ones are true? How do you know they are true? Do you ever ask the person telling you the statistic, "What is that based on?" or "Where can I see it in writing?" OR, do you simply parrot the information to the next person you are talking to and hope they don't ask you how YOU know it is true!?

Has anyone on Pink Truth asked Tracy how she KNOWS that 99% or people in Mary Kay lose money? Have any of YOU read the PSA article for yourself? Did you understand it? Or are you just mindlessly passing around the same misused statistics in much the same way you did when you were in Mary Kay? What will it take for you to use your own brain? Obviously Tracy is not going to help you with that!

Would this site be better if I misused statistics? Is that the secret to getting popular?

Pink Truth: Mary Kay Lies - a mini-series (Part 4 of 7) Mary Kay Will Consume All of Your Time

This is part 4 of a 7 part series. As you will see, by this point, apparently even asking a question is a lie.

Do you have a few hours a week to devote to Mary Kay?

"This one is a simple con. Who doesn’t have two or three hours a week that they waste on nonsense and could devote to something productive? Probably all of us. The problem is that Mary Kay doesn’t just require a couple of hours a week. Especially not if you’re interested in making more than $25 a week. The truth is that developing a legitimate customer base takes many hours per week. You have to find prospects, talk them into hosting parties, preparing for the parties, holding the parties, wrapping up loose ends after the parties, and then do it all over again. Then there are all the meetings and “training” events that you’re coerced to attend. Quite simply, there is a lot of time involved in Mary Kay, and anyone who tells you that you can do it in a couple of hours a week is lying."

1. Is simply asking, "Do you have a few hours a week to devote to Mary Kay?" a lie? If they say, "yes, I do" and you say, "oh good, with just a few hours a week, you can make oodles of cash", then YES, you are lying. But just asking... I don't see it.

2. "The problem is that Mary Kay doesn’t just require a couple of hours a week."
(Really? What happens? You get in and they say, "ha ha, now we gotch... you have to work, like, totally, 4 hours a week...[maniacal laughter]...andyou can't quit...ever.WHat did I miss?)

3. "The truth is that developing a legitimate customer base takes many hours per week."
(Right, but don't worry if you want an illegitimate customer base. If you want one of those, this question is not a lie!)

4. "Then there are all the meetings and “training” events that you’re coerced to attend."
(Here's a radical idea. DON'T GO!)

5. "Quite simply, there is a lot of time involved in Mary Kay, and anyone who tells you that you can do it in a couple of hours a week is lying."
(The "truthfulness" of this point depends a great deal on what "IT" is. And, frankly, "...there is a lot of time involved in Mary Kay..." sounds like a bit of a *cough*lie*cough* misrepresentation *cough*lie*cough* to me.)

Ok, MK newbies, PU consultants, and "hobby level" types. Weigh in please! Is "it only takes a few hours a week" a possibility? Obviously, (or at least hopefully this is obvious) you are not gonna be rakin' in the big bucks this way, but can Mary Kay be "done" with just a few hours a week?

Anyone out there know someone that does Mary Kay part-part-time? Is it worth it to them?

Is it weird to anyone else that Pink Truth is calling a question a lie? (not that anything they do is 'weird' to me anymore)

Pink Truth: Mary Kay Lies - a mini-series (Part 3 of 7) No One Really Likes Mary Kay, Really

This is part 3 of a 7 part series that, frankly, has lost hope of keeping a straight face while examining the erroneous accusations of Mary Kay's extensive foray of lies.

Mary Kay products sell themselves

"Anyone who has ever done Mary Kay knows what a total lie this is. Of course, there will occasionally be a customer who is hunting for a consultant. That’s rare. One in a while you’ll find an excited hostess who has a bunch of spendy friends at her party. That’s rare too. What we know is that the actual market for Mary Kay products is very small. There is a very tiny pool of women who are legitimate customers buying the products. There are certainly not enough of them to allow many women to turn a profit selling the products."

In keeping with the goal of allowing discussion to flow from the readers of this blog, I will try to keep my observations brief.

1. "...Anyone who has ever done Mary Kay knows what a total lie this is..."
(Anyone here care to disagree?)

2. "...Of course, there will occasionally be a customer who is hunting for a consultant. That’s rare."
(Anyone here care to disagree?)

3. "...One in a while you’ll find an excited hostess who has a bunch of spendy friends at her party. That’s rare too."
(Anyone here care to disagree? Also, isn't "spendy" an adjective for something that is expensive... like a purse? Did the hostess spend too much "buying" her friends affection?)

4. "What we know is that the actual market for Mary Kay products is very small."
(WE? KNOW? HOW?)

5. "There is a very tiny pool of women who are legitimate customers buying the products."
(Really? I would love to see the research that backs up this assertion!!)

6. "There are certainly not enough of them to allow many women to turn a profit selling the products."
(Really? I would love to see the research that backs up this assertion!!)

Sorry for the repetitiveness above, but the only consensus about the "truth" presented in this "no one likes Mary Kay" diatribe seems to be amongst people that did not do well selling Mary Kay. Hmmmm... the ones that could not find a market to sell Mary Kay to all agree that there is no market to sell Mary Kay to... whodathunkit?!?!!

Also, the "lie" they are supposed to be exposing is "Mary Kay products sell themselves". How does "there is no market for Mary Kay" whining prove that Mary Kay is not so good that it tends to save some saliva by "selling itself"? (oh... did they think their recruiter literally meant that the product was going to bust out of the box it came in, sneak out of the house when you are not looking, stroll down to the corner and 'make eyes' with passing consumers until someone picked it up, tracked you down so that they could pay you for this incredible product? I guess they have a point then. It does not "sell itself". My bad.)

What do you think? Does Mary Kay sell itself? Is this fair to say when talking to a prospective recruit? Is it possible to carve out a niche market in your area that is big enough to make decent money?

Pink Truth: Mary Kay Lies - a mini-series (Part 2 of 7) The Vast Majority of Mary Kay Recruiters Tell Lies

This is Part 2 of a 7 part series that raises an eyebrow at Pink Truth's (eyebrow at the Truth part of that as well) assertions about the rampant lies in Mary Kay. Please note, it is perfectly acceptable, if you feel so inclined, to move from the "eyebrow raise" into the "wholehearted belly chuckle" as the nefarious irony builds up.

Just One Bad Apple In The Bunch

(Again, I believe this to be from Tracy, but could be corrected after she reads this):

"Sorry, but if you look at Mary Kay recruiters in general, the vast majority of them tell lies to recruit. Many of the lies are lies of omission… They don’t tell the potential recruit how low their sales really are, the true quotas that are required to move up, and the fact that an estimated 99% of women actually lose money with Mary Kay."

I'll be brief, and allow you, my readers, to fill in any blanks here.

Pink Truth Lies:

1. "...the vast majority of them tell lies to recruit"
(This is particularly funny to me because in the original article, she links to another page that uses more lies to back up this assertion. Note that most people see a link as a sort of "footnote-like" reference that makes a thing more true.
I honestly keep hoping that one of these days, I will see the evidence that they have of things like this, "...vast majority..." BS, but every time I follow a link, I just find more exaggerations and unfounded claims.)

2. "...Many of the lies are lies of omission… They don’t tell the potential recruit how low their sales really are, the true quotas that are required to move up..."
(Ok, "...vast majority..." crap aside, you either say your sales are higher than they are (a lie) or plainly lay out your average sales (not a lie). You either lay out the required sales and recruiting levels to reach certain titles (not a lie) or you spare the poor, already overwhelmed recruit all the gory details until she is ready to find out what it takes to reach this level (also not a lie). Telling her that she can reach high levels in the company without meeting quotas (a lie) is not a lie of omission... it is just a lie.)

3. "...and the fact that an estimated 99% of women actually lose money with Mary Kay."

(This has to be my favorite... because this "fact" IS A LIE. To be fair, it is a partial truth, stretched into an exaggeration, and then twisted into the lie you see here.)

What are your thoughts on the "one bad apple" line?

Do you think there are more bad than good? Or more good than bad?

Does anyone else think that it is ridiculously, absurdly hilarious that Tracy would like Mary Kay recruiters to LIE, spreading her "99%" deception, in order to avoid being accused of lying... get this... by her?

Pink Truth: Mary Kay Lies - a mini-series (Part 1 of 7) Mary Kay Exploits Christianity for Monetary Gain

Pink Truth (the website that smears Mary Kay) has a very interesting, if liberal, definition of "truth". I doubt if anyone that has read here long has any doubt about the contempt I hold for the standards that website holds for conveying "truth".

So what happens when a weblog that plays loose with the truth starts slinging accusations about rampant lies? (sounds like the lead-in blurb about an upcoming TV sitcom) Intrigued? I hope so, because we are going to spend the next several days talking about the so called lies, manufactured or otherwise, that Pink Truth would like you to believe that Mary Kay tells.

Tonight, by way of introduction to this concept (and the ensuing conversation I hope it will spark) lets look at Pink Truth's explanation to us of just how credible it is to allege that lies are being told in Mary Kay.

Although Tracy has gotten better at giving credit to her guest posters, one can never be too sure whether or not she "forgot" to give credit... so, barring any later revelations, this is from Tracy:

"I thought it would be fun to tell you about some of my favorite lies told in Mary Kay. Lies? Lies, you say? But you thought Mary Kay was a “Christian” company!

Wrong! It’s a company that exploits Christianity for monetary gain. By spouting things about Christianity, they get women off their guard. Their defenses are lowered, and they’re more likely to believe the lies they’re told."

Now, I really want to hear your thoughts on this, but I would like to take a moment to make a few personal observations.

First of all, I strongly disagree with any assertion of "Christianity" being applied to inanimate objects.

A Christian company
A Christian song
A Christian band
etc.

A "Christian", by definition, is a person, no? Carried out further, a person that "follows Christ", right? So, do some people (in and out of Mary Kay) refer to Mary Kay as a "Christian" company? Of course. Does that make it a given? Does that mean that everyone in Mary Kay is a Christian? Of course not.

Was Mary Kay founded on Christian principles? Are some (or many) of Mary Kay's core values guided by Christian values? It sure seems that way.

My question is, "What does this have to do with a discussion about rampant deception in a company?"

Wouldn't lies be bad whether or not the company was "Christian"?
Isn't it possible that a company aiming to uphold Christian values be capable of lies?

Now this, in and of itself, is not really very shocking. (considering the source) It irritates me, yes, but, really, Pink Truth is hardly the first or only people to mock someone that tries to put Christian principles into practical application and they certainly won't be the last. However, what changes this from a minor irritation (like the rash you get as a result of chafing) to something worth committing an entire post to, is the second part of this "introduction".

For the sake of emphasis, I will quote it again:

"Wrong! It’s a company that exploits Christianity for monetary gain. By spouting things about Christianity, they get women off their guard. Their defenses are lowered, and they’re more likely to believe the lies they’re told."

Using the "It's a Christian company" line as a segue, they tell the most insidious lie in the Pink Truth handbook. "Mary Kay exploits Christianity for monetary gain."

This has been discussed in other places, and undoubtedly, there are people that fit this accusation. However, consider the person that holds their beliefs and values so highly that they make an effort to incorporate them in their business dealing. When they approach a potential recruit (for the sake of argument, let's assume that this potential recruit holds similar values in similarly high esteem... how else would they be "exploitable"?), they encourage them, as they would like to be encouraged... to pray about it, to ask God for guidance, and whether this would be a good direction for them to take. Pink Truth would have you believe that this person is exploiting Christianity for monetary gain. And not just this person. Mary Kay as a company is doing this. How, you may ask. "By spouting things about Christianity..."

Here's the problem with this "theory".

A God-fearing, Bible-believing Christian is not going to be taken in by someone "spouting things about Christianity".

Anyone that doesn't identify as "Christian" is even less likely to be taken in by "things-about-Christianity" spouting.

So, who exactly is Mary Kay using Christianity to exploit for monetary gain?

What are your thoughts? Does Mary Kay exploit Christianity for monetary gain? If so, how? Can anyone explain this to me?

Mary Kay Recruiters Consistently Lie About Everything. True or False?

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I posted this question, "Is Mary Kay an illegal pyramid scheme? Will the results of the Y.T.B. lawsuit change things for Mary Kay?".

While there were many good responses, yesterday someone saw fit to go through all the trouble to create a blogger profile just so they could "flame" this site with Pink Truth propaganda.

It went something like this.

"Let me tell you in no uncertain terms that getting into Mary Kay Cosmetics is extremely dangerous! Recruiters consistently lie about everything, and the lies are perpetuated over and over:
"MK marketing plan taught at Harvard" NOT!!!!
"MK is a dual-marketing plan" NOT!!!
"Executive income on part-time hours" NOT!!!!
"You can write off your personal use of products as advertisement" NOT!!!!
Make no mistake that MKC is a devious, corrupt company whose catchy motto "Enriching Womens' Lives" is anything but! Thousands upon thousands of womens'lives have been destroyed by following the advice and business practices handed down from their uplines: divorce (their widely taught "husband unawareness program"), foreclosures (ordering incentives and "short-term loss for long-term gain"), and bankruptcy ("fake it till you make it").
Beware! Mary Kay Cosmetics preys on womens' natural trust.
If this lawsuit being discussed here rests upon the fact that their salesforce consistantly lie about the "flopportunity", then yes, MKC will be next. And for the sake of innocent women, I truly hope it will."

As I suspected, the cowardly deviant had no designs to stick around and explain his/her position, much less defend it.

However, and I am sure quite opposite the expectations of aforementioned deviant, I would like to discuss this further.

Since this seems to mirror somewhat accurately the complaints and missives of the Pink Truth crowd, this is a great opportunity for the "balanced" crowd to respond.

What say all of you? Are these rantings valid? Have you seen any of these things take place?