Are We Taught To Target Dysfunctional Adults??

I had received a request from one of our readers that I feel is worthy of some discussion, but I just haven't come up with anything that I can be proud to put my name on. When I write it, it comes of as I am being very defensive (as I often do being a sales director and having to always read on that other site that all directors "do this" or all sales directors "do that" and I know what I do and don't do and I know what I have been taught and what I have not been taught and most of what they say is poopoo. This is a great topic and one I would like for readers of the web to have a place to read "the other side" of the article that was titled on that other site:

"Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families: The Perfect Recruiting Pool for the MLM Industry" Written by Raisinberry

Our requester begins: First I want to say thank you for having such an engaging and truly balanced blog for those of us not harboring oddly bitter and seemingly misplaced hatred toward a corporation...(You are welcome!)
I know your blog comments occasionally on the articles "over there", and I don't know if you were planning on commenting on this one but for some reason this particular blame stained article got my goat more so than others and I would LOVE to hear, if you wouldn't mind, your "balanced" take on this one.
Second, (speaking of the devil) I was reading Pink Truth today and they have an article about how MLM's and Mary Kay in particular capitalize on the dysfunctional childhoods of others and how everyone who joins does so because of their dysfunctional childhood and subsequent desire to overcome their own dysfunctions and ignore others'.

I just feel as if this article, this particular subject, of dissecting and projecting, is above and beyond the normal boundaries of blame-ville and I think some other perspective might be interesting, hence my request.
Thank you in advance, if you do decide to post about it, and if not obviously that's fine :) thanks for all that you do post. (Will give it my best)

I wanted to comment on this article the first time I read it and then I actually was totally repulsed that they could write such filth and no one calls them on it. I find it totally offensive in more than one way. And even though it doesn't happen often, I must admit, the disgust of what they try to imply does leave me without much to say but shaking my head in disbelief.

I have never known of anyone in Mary Kay that goes and targets "wounded souls" to capitalize for their own gain. I don't know where some get the ideas that they share but I have never been told to "target" weak woman, abused woman, etc.... nor have I seen or used a questionnaire that ask if a woman came from an alcoholic or abusive family and if she checked yes, then I would work extra hard to recruit her, hogwash...(we all have baggage in our life, how we choose to handle it is up to us)

what I see from an outside point of view is that many who join Mary Kay are looking to fill voids in their lives and receiving recognition (earned or bought) begins to fill those needs. Unfortunately, when the individual starts feeling that she/he cheated to get the recognition, or that they were used or played by another, their self esteem plummets even more and they feel even worse than before. Trying to fill voids in life with Mary Kay isn't going to be anything more than a short term fix, it would be like plugging a leaking boat with a wad of bubble gum, without counseling and total change of behavior, the individual is going to remain, lost and searching. The failing in Mary Kay is just another downer to weight the troubled soul down even more but in many cases MK gives them a scapegoat, something to blame other than themselves and it is always easier to blame someone (something ie:MK) else than to accept the responsibility for your own actions. (I am not saying those that do this are conscious of what they are doing and I AM NOT saying there aren't some directors that abuse or maniupulate consultants, but I do believe, their hate of Mary Kay is just masking the hate of something else. I also feel that many after feeling "wronged" in MK should go to counseling and learn how not to get caught in the trap of their "needing" to be validated by a group. PT is far from that resource. IMHO, pt enables most to continue to wallow in their insecurities and justifies their feelings by complaining with others who are in the same boat. So they all validate one another but no one is is getting any healthier. No support group would encourage people to go over and over and still highly involved with the thing that caused them pain.

I do not see alcholics being told to go sit in a bar for 5 hours, reading the labels on the liquors, pouring drinks, smelling the drinks, etc... to save others from their pitfalls. In order for one to heel, their needs to be distance, acceptance, forgiveness, and then peace. Until the process completes itself, their is unrest. (jk- no different than running on any other treadmill) round, and round, no finish line, no place to get off.

Please everyone help me out her and get some discussion going for our requester as I have not done justice to her comment. I am very emotional and feel deeply about what I would like to express on this whole concept it just isn't translating into the written word and I don't want to keep this member waiting any longer.

One thought I did have before hitting "post" often I think because MK does focus on recogntion and praise perhaps it attracks types needing this reassurance not targets them. - just an after thought~

Please add on and make this a piece that may help many! Thank you

Sexual Deviation and Mary Kay

Do these two things go together?

An occasional commenter here by the name of blessed (known on Pink Truth as blessedone and in real life as... just kidding, I don't post real names here unless they wish to be posted) posted a comment today on Pink Truth.

"Who could ever imagined there is actually an entity out there that so effectively uses one of the most beautiful, vital attributes one could have (personal faith in Christ) as a sword to cause such damage? Just disgusting. "

I know, right. Blessed, I could not agree with you more! Oh wait, what... you are not talking about Pink Truth? You are talking about Mary Kay? Oh. Well, some people do that and it bothers me too. I don't think that the vast majority of people in Mary Kay are this way.

Moving on, he further states;

"There seems to me to be a strained parallel between the way targets are approached for recruitment into Mary Kay Cosmetics and a sex offender’s “grooming” of victims. The immediate strain of this analogy should be apparent; Mary Kay is not seeking to sexually assault children. Nonetheless, the method of entrapment is similar. Few sex offenders force themselves onto children. They go to great lengths to establish a rapport with the victim, to cultivate and place themselves in a position of trust. This “grooming” process can be extremely successful so long as the perpetrator has the element of time and exposure to the victim. In many instances the victim does not have a complete comprehension of the depth of the deviance being committed. Some victims are actually distraught when the relationship with the offender abruptly ends after the crime is discovered. It’ not unusual for the victim to be remorseful over the loss of a “close friend.” What’s more, many victims wrestle with feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and loss of self esteem following molestation. The similarities are uncanny. "

To quote you on this site, "are ya kiddin me?"

The similarities are uncanny?

The reason that "grooming" is so unnerving to the majority of the population is that it bears uncanny resemblance to "normal" behavior.

The reason that it is WRONG is because of what all of that care and attention leads to (namely abusing children).

It is NOT wrong for someone to "woo" a potential business partner/associate/employee in the recruiting process. In most of the good jobs I've had my eventual boss took me to lunch, dinner, coffee throughout the negotiating process. Through the time that I worked for them they also "took care of me" with occasional "thank you" meals, drinks, etc. This is (nod to SHAY) SOP - Standard Operating Procedure. I would not go to my last boss and say, "take me out to dinner tonight or I am going to think that you never really "meant it" when you did it before."

I am glad that you acknowledge that this "parallel" is strained, but in fact they are nothing alike. There is nothing wrong with a full grown man establishing a "rapport" with a child. It is when his intentions are devious that this is appalling.

Most women in Mary Kay do not have devious intentions for the women they are building a rapport with. They simply want to offer them a business proposal. If the rapport building stops when the recipient expresses a lack of interest in what is being offered, is that strange?

*Just found another contradiction!

"Mary Kay ladies will not stop hounding me to sign up, when I say "no" they should just leave me alone"
vs.
"Once she found out I was not interested in me, she stopped talking to me, calling me, taking me to coffee"


Anyway,
Because there are some "predator" like people in MK, I believe that it is accurate to say that THE TACTICS of those individuals (the ones that ARE just being nice to you to try to get your credit card out of your wallet) bear an uncanny resemblance to THE TACTICS of a sex offender.

Thoughts?

More about recruiting

So, here we go with recruiting again. As it is this subject is complex and ultimately, the decision to recruit or not to recruit is an individual decision.

As with anything, there are right ways and there are wrong ways. There are right motives and there are wrong motives.

I will confess, I am a little excited about what I am about to post here.

"Why Dave?" you might ask. "You never get excited about anything do you?" Well, yes sometimes I do. And, since you ask, I will tell you why.

I have felt that many posts lately have placed Mary Kay in a good light (when not twisted so far out of context as to make the original text unrecognizable). I was starting to think that maybe there were so few people doing the "bad things" in MK that I would not have enough negative to comprise a truly "balanced" perspective.

This post from Pink Truth has some things in it that I would consider questionable. Let's take a look shall we?

Again, my source is Pink Truth. They have made a valiant effort at giving their source credit this time...(I am not making this up) Here is their version of giving credit to a source.

I forget which unprotected UnitNet site I found it on first, but it's on several sites as "training material".

Anyway, if this came from a director, I have a few problems with it. I will explain after the jump.

1.You will not lose money. Yes, 50% seems to be more than 4, 9 or 13 % BUT I guarantee you that she will work harder to build her client base then she would to help you. She will reach women that you never knew about in her life...even if she's your sister. Look at this ... if she is a Star Consultant ... your 4% is $72, 9% is $162 and 13% is $234!! The average client buys $50 in a Star Quarter---that's only $25 profit. So which is mo' money?

2.You are too busy to do more Mary Kay. Precisely, why you should recruit. She works...you make mo' money. If you aren't heading for Directorship then it's your director's responsibility to train her. You have a few things to do to help ... but #1 is to hook her up with the Director!! You can dovetail for 15% of the appt sales to a team member and you make that fee plus when she orders, you will make a recruiting commission too. Perfect ... no extra work for you...but mo' money for you.

3.You are not too new. You don't have to know more about the business to bring someone in the business. You don't have to do anything but bring a potential to your director and ask her to interview her for you. Who are the potentials ... anyone who buys MaryKay from you and you like her!!! Remember that you are NOT giving her YOUR job but the potential of the MK business for HER. She might want a free car and you don't. It's the director's job to train. If you know enough to say, "yes' to MK...you know enough to recruit. Need mo' money?

4.I am afraid if they say no to me then my feelings will be hurt. Ok, that statement sounds just silly enough to not warrant more opinion on my part. It's just 'no-for now' ... not even forever!

5.Will they think that I am some pyramid scam artist? No, they will think that you love what you do and proud to share this others. That is even more of a reason why sharing all the facts about a MK business is so important-once they understand the truths of MK ... they could never think poorly of you. Oh contraire, they will respect you more even if they are a 'no-for now'. This business is very impressive.

6.If you don't think you know anyone who would be interested, because she has asked you or you have pre-judged them ... then think again!! Did someone ask you to listen to the facts or did you ask them? 95% had to be asked first before joining MK. Chances are they are waiting for someone to believe in them enough to ask them, or they don't know the truths and have made their own prejudgments about what we do. Don't wait for someone to recruit one of your clients before talking to them ... if you don't ask them ... eventually, someone will.

First of all let me say that this sounds like it is coming from a director that want to get some recruits in her unit that WANT to go to the top. It has the feel that she is suggesting that she is willing to work very closely with the ones that are recruited from this endeavor and that you will really have to do very little. She seems to be saying, "If YOU don't want to do more than just sell to a few people, but you see someone that might WANT to do more than that, why not let them, and in the process you will make more money.

Second, it feels like it should be taken in the context of being a response to someone who has just said, "I want to recruit, but..." and is in fact six responses to six "but..."

Here goes.

1. She is guaranteeing they will not lose money but will make money. This is an impossible guarantee. If a good customer turns into a star consultant or better, it WILL be. But there is no guarantee that she WILL become anything more than a personal use consultant. Some of the language here makes me think the first thing I said may be in play. Hopefully this director after making this claim would recommend the ones becoming personal use consultants to just remain clients. However, I get the feeling that she would recruit these in hopes of getting a star from them. Some people are not meant to be recruited. I would hope this director knows the difference, but judging solely on the guarantee she puts out here and the testimonies (like Judi's) that we have all heard, I have my doubts. This does not mean that you should not consider recruiting someone that may be able to sell a lot, just that you are not guaranteed they will.

2. If she were talking to me, I would say, "huh". Again, if you recruit someone that ends up being a stellar seller and your director does all the work, GOOD! But you may get someone that just wants the discount and you lose a good chunk of your profit, BAD! (not entirely bad though if you look at it from a philanthropic point of view, just not "good for business")

3. It is true that you are never too new to find a recruit. When my wife was just getting started, she would often have a 3-way interview with her director. (free training) Any one of your Mary Kay customers is a POTENTIAL recruit. Not all of them WILL be a recruit. And, as mentioned just before this, there is no guarantee that they will make you more money if they become a recruit. Although number three does not expressly indicate that, because of number one, it is implied. This is the same "logic" that I hold against PT when they come to conclusions based on previous conclusions that are inaccurate. And of course ending the paragraph with "Need mo' money?" definitely makes it sound like all you have to do is introduce your clients to your director and they will make you more money. This is not necessarily true.

4. Ouch. Ok, it is true that you should not allow your feelings to get hurt by a "no". We have discussed this elsewhere. But there has got to be a better way to say it, no? Further, there is a possibility that it IS, "no forever" also as discussed elsewhere. While it is a good idea to quantify a no, once you have determined that this is not what they want, let it go. (more on that later)

5. Actually, they might. We have seen that some people consider Mary Kay a pyramid scheme. Usually the ones that feel this way will not be convinced otherwise. Why waste your energy trying to convince them and recruit them? If you try to sell something that you are convinced is going to turn on you and destroy your life, you will probably not do well! If you sit down with someone and they say, "Isn't Mary Kay..." and you respond, "No, actually it is more like..." and they become curious at that point, good. If they are hellbent on "saving you from the evil pyramid scheme", you are probably better off "agreeing to disagree" if you can and maintaining your consultant/client relationship!

6. I think she means, "... because she HASN'T asked you..." as opposed to, "... because she HAS asked you...". It makes more sense that way. Regardless, assuming that you WANT to recruit someone and are willing to take the risk that they will not make you as much money (or worse, less) as they bring in as a client, than this is very true and very important. If you don't ask, you will never know. And, someone else may be the one that does ask and therefore reaps the benefits.


So, if you are a consultant and are considering recruiting, you should consider that you might not get what this person is guaranteeing.

I know we just talked about recruiting, but I want more. What ARE some of the benefits of recruiting? What have the trade offs been? Have you recruited women that you had allowed to just stay clients? Have you had people that you thought, "she would be great" only to see someone else share the opportunity with her first? Have you written someone off as not being interested and then seen her as someone else's new recruit the next month?

Any thoughts on what this (source unknown) director shared?

Let's hear it.

On a side note, comments left here have not been being forwarded to me. So, while I normally will see your comment no matter where you leave it, I may miss some until I figure out what is broken. Of course you are all commenting so quickly that I can't really keep up anyway!

So, fire away.

Thanks