Jump to content

Talk:Mary Kay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Thanks for archiving the talk page. Hopefully future dialog won't be lost.67.136.137.119 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the neutrality issue?

[edit]

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. What exactly is the neutrality issue? User: 2602:301:77c1:bed0:e98b:d1a4:60cc:8429 9:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

POV Template removed. The tagging editor failed to initiate a discussion to support the placement of the tag. Further, lack of talk page discussion is interpreted as there is no other support for the template and/or the issue is not worth fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77C1:BED0:7C01:FCA2:B707:53AC (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What content is written like an advertisement?

[edit]

It is not clear what the advertisement issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. Which specific items are written like an advertisement? 2602:301:77C1:BED0:AC97:FA1D:67EB:B2E (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement Template removed. The tagging editor failed to initiate a discussion to support the placement of the tag. Further, lack of talk page discussion is interpreted as there is no other support for the template and/or the issue is not worth fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbdivemaster (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 January 2020‎ UTC

Section renamed

[edit]

I renamed the section to attempt to conform more closelt to WP:NPOV.Amber luxor 17:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kay Qua Pyramid Scheme

[edit]

I do not like the current wording of the sub-section "Mary Kay Qua Pyramid Scheme". For starters,it consists of too many direct quotes. Either dicuss it here,or rewrite it paragraph by paragraph.67.136.137.119 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid scheme: "a fraudulent scheme in which people are recruited to make payments to the person who recruited them while expecting to receive payments from the persons they recruit; when the number of new recruits fails to sustain the hierarchical payment structure the scheme collapses with most of the participants losing the money they put in"[qua 1]

Because new consultants pay Mary Kay corporate rather than the recruiter, and the recruiter is paid commissions through Corporate as well, Mary Kay does not resemble a pyramid scheme. However, if the one would like to still make the argument, evidence is needed directly tying the scheme to this company. The entire section must be rewritten. The previous section was vague, largely irrelevant to Mary Kay, and inappropriate. 70.122.53.194 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) Quoting an earlier talk discussion: "In Re Kescott (86 F.T.C. 1106) essentially ruled that all MLMs were pyramid schemes. In Re Amway (93 F.T.C. 618) essentially said that if an MLM met specific criteria, it was not a pyramid scheme. Those criteria have become known as "The Amway Safe Harbor Defence", and, as such, are case law."Amber luxor 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

b) Mary Kay does not meet any of the criteria outlined by "in Re Amway" that can be used to demonstrate that it (Mary Kay) is not a pyramid scheme. Amber luxor 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

c) In a pyramid scheme consideration can be transferred either directly from recruit to upline, or indirectly, from recruit to corporate to upline. Mary Kay commissions are based upon wholesale purchases, and as such, are indirect payments to the upline from the consultant. This is how Mary Kay resembles a product based pyramid scheme.Amber luxor 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

d) The nature of Mary Kay requires consultants to recruit, if they wish to advance in the organization. There is no advancement for retail sales, regardless of the amount of product that is sold. [ Recognition at Queens Court of Sales is merely recognition of the people who have purchased the most product at wholesale. Actual retail sales are irrelevant for that recognition.] This is yet another way of how Mary Kay resembles a product based pyramid scheme.Amber luxor 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e) The section "Mary Kay Qua Pyramid Scheme" needs editing/rewriting, not deletion.Amber luxor 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Pyramid schemes are illegal and the Federal Trade Commission shuts them down. Mary Kay has been around for over 46 years and has never had legal action brought against them by the government for being a pyramid scheme or product based pyramid scheme.

2. An argument above mentions a ruling that all MLMs are essentially pyramid schemes - Mary Kay is NOT a MLM - it is a Direct Sales company, there is a difference.

3. Calling a legitimate business a pyramid scheme (or product based pyramid scheme - another illegal structure) is SLANDER & misrepresenting the company as an illegal structure in a place where people go to gain unbiased knowledge is irresponsible and could negatively affect the businesses of hundreds of thousands of independent sales force members.

4. A product based pyramid scheme touts products that are either fake (they don't really sell those products) or don't actually have a retail market - they are primarily designed to trick participants into joining the organization (i.e. a widget that the creator of the pyramid paid $1 for and sells to the recruits for $100, at a mark up so high that it would be difficult to sell to a retail customer. Because the sales force members cannot then turn around and sell the highly priced widget in the retail market they are forced to recruit in order to recoup their original investment or make any money in the plan. Which is why recruiting is the primary source of income in these structures). Mary Kay products are widely used and do have a retail market. Additionally, many women in the company make money purely selling the products with out ever recruiting.

5. The majority of Mary Kay sales force members make their money through selling the products to end users. Going a step further than the company provided information on this subject, and using a common sense approach to logic: If you were to ask a sales force member what he or she did for a living (as related to her Mary Kay business), the large majority would respond by saying “I sell Mary Kay.” There would be no benefit to the sales force member to say this if it were not true (ie she could just say her rank/title instead – but she does not because she wants to promote the fact that she SELLS the products and that customers can go to her with any product needs).

6. There are many customers extremely loyal to the Mary Kay brand and use the products as end users outside of the organization.

7. In a traditional pyramid scheme, products and services are not sold or exchanged, the only thing that is exchanged is money. Mary Kay sells products to end users. Illegal pyramid schemes might try to make it appear as though there is a legitimate product or service being rendered when there is indeed none.

8. Mary Kay Sales force members DO NOT make money on pure recruiting or purely bringing someone into the business. No one gets paid when a consultant just gets started with her $100 starter kit and moves no further. Consultants/Directors get paid a percentage of subsequent wholesale sales by the recruited team member. This is a huge distinction and it misrepresents the business to make a blanket statement that sales force members get paid on recruiting. Often times in pyramid schemes, predators are looking to make that quick upfront money on their victims and then move on to the next victim.

9. Sales force members are not required to recruit to stay in the business or at all if they choose not to. In order to sustain a pyramid scheme, each participant would be required to recruit.

10. Recruiters do not get paid to infinity on new recruits, therefore there is NOT an endless stream of recruits getting paid on recruits, etc. For example, consultant "A" only ever adds consultant "B," consultant "A" would get paid a percentage of the wholesale sales of consultant "B," if then consultant "B" adds consultant "C," consultant "A" would not get paid at all on consultant "C."

11. Consultants can advance in the company without recruiting. I would consider building a large customer base and having a large business an advancement, even just making extra money to make ends meet by having a side sales business is an advancement. If you owned your own McDonald's, for example, and increased your customers and sales, would you say that is not an advancement in your business? To downplay the accomplishments of the sales force and say they can't advance places an exaggerated emphasis on recruiting over sales that is not necessarily present in the business. The recognition of Queen of Sales is definitely an advancement in the business - it is based on the sales performance of one individual, not their team (and therefore not linked to recruiting).

12. There are illegal pyramid schemes out there that do defraud people. Pyramids have been successful because they try to mimic legitimate business models. Just like a counterfeit bill, criminals try to make it look like (or as close to) the real thing. Expanding on the counterfeit analogy, it is just as important to know what a real $100 bill looks like as it is a fake one to protect oneself. Understanding the difference between a legitimate business with a similar structure (ie Mary Kay) will better help people prevent being taken in by the corrupt businesses. PublicKnowledege300 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Multi-level marketing article The structure is designed to create a marketing and sales force by compensating promoters of company products not only for sales they personally generate, but also for the sales of other promoters they introduce to the company, creating a downline of distributors and a hierarchy of multiple levels of compensation in the form of a pyramid. That definition describes the business model used by Marky Kay Cosmetics. As such, it is an MLM, and hence both 86 F.T.C. 1106 and 93 F.T.C. 618 apply, and it is a pyramid scheme, unless specific criteria, which Marty Kay Cosmetics makes no effort to adhere, are strictly adhered to.jonathon (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it is possible that the majority of members make there money selling products, I'll just point out that Mary Kay (Canada) points out that in 2008, that only 2,011 earned more than Canadian$100 in commissions. No data on how much those consultants purchase each year, but 2007 worldwide was US$1,414. Gross profit would be under US$7000 for the year. Alternatively, look at the figures that are required to be on National Court of Sales. Assuming that all product that is bought from MK is sold at MSRP, you are still looking at under US$20K for the year. Or just a fraction more than you earn with no experience flipping burgers. (US$18K with no experience. goes up to US$20K after one year. Plus you get benefits which are not available to Mary Kay consultants.) I'll also point out that the US$1,139,962 judgement against Touch of Pink represents about US$280K per year in pre-tax profit --- or more than five times the profit that the best retail vendor in Mary Kay earns. Or roughly US$280K more in profit than the average US based vendor of Mary Kay Cosmetics earns in a year.jonathon (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Kay Cosmetics does not have a career path for anybody who focuses only on retail sales. There career path is exclusively focused on who can get the most bodies (usually alive, but neither death nor non-physical materializations are a hindrance) into the organization, with the highest possible initial inventory purchase. As far Queen of Court sales goes, that is based purely on wholesale purchases with no attempt to verify sales to bona fide third party retail customers. (Mary Kay retail outlets in Nigeria, amongst other countries, are supplied by the recipients of that "honour" dumping the product at a loss, to liquidators.)jonathon (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the bottom line: In neither "In Re Kescott (86 F.T.C. 1106) nor Re Amway (93 F.T.C. 618) is Mary Kay accused of being a pyramid or product based pyramid. The law is NOT "guilty until proven innocent." Here are the facts – FACT pyramid and product based pyramid schemes are illegal. FACT Mary Kay has never been found guilty by the government for being a pyramid or product based pyramid scheme. It is incorrect/false to call/define Mary Kay (a legal and legitimate business) a pyramid or product based pyramid scheme (two illegal and illegitimate business structures). End of Discussion. PublicKnowledege300 (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both In Re Kescott andIn Re Amway is case law. As such, it applies to Mary Kay. Inasmuch as Mary Kay does not operate within the defined parameters of that case law, one can say it is a product based pyramid scheme. (You do realize that Mary Kay has settled out of court, every case in which being a pyramid scheme was an allegation against it, don't you.) jonathon (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with this section? It doesn't say anything regarding Mary Kay as a pyramid scheme. If the user wants more info about what a pyramid scheme is, they can refer to the page on Pyramid Schemes. As it is right now, the section offers two quotes about what a pyramid scheme is, and then mentions that some people are "coming forward" to report "abuses". This last part introduces no new information to the topic - plus, it is very clearly written from a non-neutral point of view. Mattl1983 (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was written that way to minimize edit wars between those who are clueless about the legal definition of a pyramid scheme, and those whose sources fail WP:V. jonathon (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ | Pyramid Scheme Definition

Woolf v Mary Kay Cosmetics needs clarification

[edit]

I've read the section Woolf v Mary Kay Cosmetics, but I didn't find it clear. Admittedly, this is due to my lack of a law degree. Things I think would help the section:

  • When was the original case brought before the courts and/or when did the Dallas County court pass judgment?
  • When was it appealed by Mary Kay, to whom was it appealed, and when was that judgment passed?
  • What does "The Supreme Court USA ruled Certiorari Denied 31 May 2005" mean?

Thanks! — gogobera (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This case is borderline for meeting the current Wikipedia criteria for notability. I think it needs its own wiki article. Anyway, to address the questions in reverse order:
  • "Certiorari Denied" means that the case does not set binding case law, and that the Supreme Court will not review this specific decision;
  • The dates of the appeal and reversal are on the PDF that the footnote links to. It was appealed to the Federal Court of the Northern District of Texas;
  • The original court case was filed in 1998, in California. The Texas case was filed in 2000;jonathon (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OperaDivaBabe & marykaytribute.com

[edit]

OperaDivaBabe has repeatedly inserted text from the site marykaytribute.com. Nevermind that the material is strongly promotional, etc., it is also from website without a GFDL-compatible license. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I reverted were due her POV pushing. jonathon (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the copywritten material immediately; if there are additional copyright violations, please flag it and I will immediately remove it. I object that the other changes made were considered "Point of View Pushing" - I find it incredulous that the previous wiki definition is not considered "POV Pushing" as negative and littered with inaccuracies as it was. All I did was create a more balanced view of a company that has been internationally recognized and awarded - not to mention remove content that was outright false. As you can see valid criticisms remain - but it is *unfair* to only have content that is negative in the definition of anything. PS - do your homework about the company if you believe any of the statements regarding the creation of the business or it's decades of accolades are incorrect or merely "Point of View." —Preceding unsigned comment added by OperaDivaBabe (talk • contribs) 00:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Kay Ashe's biography belongs in that article, not the article on the company. Almost a decade elapsed between announcing a moratorium on animal testing, and declaring that they would no longer do any animal testing. The number of "middle man" distributors is irrelevant to whether or not an organization is a pyramid scheme. All of the levels that one can achieve in Mary kay are dependent upon recruiting a specific number of people, and them purchasing a specific amount of product at wholesale. Retail sales are irrelevant to the level one attains in Mary Kay. This applies equally to Queen of Sales Court and Queen of Recruiting Court.The section on the Mary Kay Ashe Foundation leads reads like an advertisement. Neither is it a part of Mary Kay (Corporate), which is what this article is about. jonathon (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) The history of a company is an integral part of any encyclopedic definition of the company, and thus the story of how this company was created is allowable. 2) I do not purport to understand how a multi-billion dollar company unilaterally implements a decision to stop animal testing - all I know is that Mary Kay is now a leader in the cosmetics industry for banning animal testing (which includes NOT farming out testing to labs who DO test on animals). 3) As to your comment on middle-man distributors being irrelevant - it is absolutely relevant when alleging a "Pyramid Scheme!" To quote the Federal Trade Commission's definition of a Pyramid scheme (from the prepared statement of the General Counsel of the US Federal Trade Commission): "Pyramid schemes...all share one overriding characteristic. They promise consumers or investors large profits based primarily on recruiting others to join their program, not based on profits from any real investment or real sale of goods to the public. Some schemes may purport to sell a product, but they often simply use the product to hide their pyramid structure. There are two tell-tale signs that a product is simply being used to disguise a pyramid scheme: inventory loading and a lack of retail sales. Inventory loading occurs when a company's incentive program forces recruits to buy more products than they could ever sell, often at inflated prices. If this occurs throughout the company's distribution system, the people at the top of the pyramid reap substantial profits, even though little or no product moves to market. The people at the bottom make excessive payments for inventory that simply accumulates in their basements. A lack of retail sales is also a red flag that a pyramid exists. Many pyramid schemes will claim that their product is selling like hot cakes. However, on closer examination, the sales occur only between people inside the pyramid structure or to new recruits joining the structure, not to consumers out in the general public." Mary Kay's direct-sales structure does not fall within this definition, nor in the other ways you allege above. 4) Lastly, charitable organizations set up by the parent company don't even deserve a footnote within the company definition? OperaDivaBabe (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers the history of the company. The article on Mary Kay Ashe covers how she founded the company. It doesn't need to be duplicated here. The "co-operation" with PETA came after the other cosmetic companies stopped doing animal testing. "There are two tell-tale signs that a product is simply being used to disguise a pyramid scheme: inventory loading and a lack of retail sales." As the data in the article demonstrates, there is no logical reason for an initial inventory purchase of more than US$1,800. US$600 would be far closer to the amount that a consultant will sell at MSRP to bona fide third party retail customers. The sole reason that Touch of Pink, and the other liquidators are able to purchase so much inventory, is because of front loading, and other types of inventory pushing practiced by the directors. There are currently 296 items on eBay listed as "Mary Kay Wholesale Lot". There are 5379 Mary Kay items tagged as "skin care" on eBay. There are 13854 Mary Kay items tagged as "makeup", with 4504 of them having "buy it now" prices. By comparison "Estee Lauder" has 6397 items in all categories. "Ralph Lauren" has 51076 items total, of which 1716 are in the "health and beauty" category. "Old Navy" has 25961 items total, of which nine are in the "health and beauty" category. Between comparing the amount of product auctioned there, and that the overwhelming majority on eBay sell for less than wholesale, the conclusion is that there is a lack of retail sales. The anecdotal evidence indicates that Mary Kay Corporate took a major financial hit, with the amount of product returned by consultants between 2004 and 2007. The compensation structure for Mary Kay implies that it is a product based pyramid scheme. As far as the Mary Kay Ashe Foundation is concerned, that is discussed in the article on Mary Kay Ashe. jonathon (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - Mary Kay ASH. I don't agree that the history of how she created HER COMPANY is irrelevant to the article. Animal testing - truly, what does it matter how long it took as long as it DID take and is so strongly supported today? Mary Kay is hardly the only cosmetics company to have tested on animals in the past. So many cosmetic companies still do it today, and yet Mary Kay vehemently does not.
Part one of the Pyramid discussion - Let's be abundantly clear: purchase of inventory is by no means MANDATORY. Period, end of story. When a consultant begins their business, they are advised by their Director as to company incentives and the reasons why one may choose to stock inventory. There's no gun, no blackmail, no threats of bodily harm. I would like to say that all Directors advise consultants to purchase inventory they will comfortably sell (or use for their own use only) in the near-term - I am not so naive, but I *will* say that Mary Kay Corporate trains Directors endlessly and repeatedly to do just that. The rationale you're referencing behind what is a reasonable inventory purchase are questionable at best, as the success of each beauty consultant's business is SOLELY dependent upon their individual work ethic - nothing more. How can you create statistics across the board when there are plenty of individuals who come into Mary Kay and NEVER order a THING, lots who order just the yearly minimum they need to continue their wholesale discount, and some who decide to order inventory and work a business?
What's the point of front-loading a consultant's inventory purchase, anyway? How do you really think that works? Let's paint the scenario: new consultant joins, and is somehow magically "talked" into buying $2400 worth or product she never intends to sell. Or maybe she does - doesn't matter. The director makes a nice commission from Mary Kay's profits on the sale (which is the same way people in corporate get paid, by the way - from the company's profits from sales - just thought I'd point that out). In this scenario, consultant feels rooked into spending $2400. Betrayed. Maybe she tries to sell the product, maybe not. A SMART director works with that consultant daily to teach her to sell the products and work a successful business. But a Director can only do so much - the consultant has to book appointments, hold classes. If they are not willing to do that, there's nothing much anyone can do to change it. So the consultant returns the product with the 90% buy-back guarantee. The month following the product return, the Director pays back EVERY CENT of commission earned. And the appeal of this scenario is...? It is in a Director's best interest to train a consultant to sell that inventory! It makes NO SENSE not to.
I am surprised you would use ebay as a measuring stick for what is successful and what is not. Post-Katrina, there was a RUSH of Mary Kay products on ebay. You want to buy those products where you don't know where they've been? Under floodwaters for who knows how long? In the back of someone's trunk in blistering TX heat? Let's take a look at some of those products on ebay - the first PAGE I looked at had ALL discontinued products. Old products, old formulas. It's not uncommon for stores to sell older product for less than half price to move it, so the "less than wholesale" comment is irrelevant. Let's be clear - it is ILLEGAL for beauty consultants to sell products via ebay. It's like buying something at a flea market - you have no idea what you're getting. Mary Kay is a customer-service business; Mary Kay Ash would roll over in her grave if she knew some of her products were being sold on ebay.
Your "anecdotal evidence" is exactly that - anecdotal. Since Mary Kay does not publish financial specifics, a lot of anecdotal evidence unfortunately comes from websites that cater to people who are no longer Mary Kay beauty consultants. There are just as many stories of women (and men) who are successful in Mary Kay. Obviously, mine is one of them.
"The compensation structure for Mary Kay implies that it is a product based pyramid scheme." By that logic, every other company that pays it's sales force from it's profits is also a pyramid. In other words - I'm sorry, you're simply incorrect. Mary Kay is not a pyramid. Mary Kay is Direct-sales and a member in good standing with the Direct Sales association. Pyramids are not allowed to become members of the DSA, NOR ARE PYRAMIDS LEGAL. For more information please refer to the breakdown of why Mary Kay is not a pyramid I've listed in the article. OperaDivaBabe (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that the purchase of inventory is not mandatory is, at best, disingenuous. Whilst unitnet is not representative, the clear message there is that if one does not make a US$3,600 initial inventory purchase, one is not worthy of the "training" that the director offers. To say that "Directors advise consultants to purchase inventory they will comfortably sell (or use for their own use only) in the near-term" is flat out wrong. The consistent pattern is one of directors pushing for the purchase of more inventory than can be sold by a consultant within a reasonable period of time. Take a look at the "How to be a national within 1,000 days" document. One of the issues in "Blackmon v Mary Kay" is how much Front Loading Mary Kay tolerates. As far as "reasonable inventory" goes, no business that expects to remain in business will have an initial inventory that is more than they project to sell within six months. For a chain such as Wallmart, or Kroger, the expectation is that the inventory will be sold within one week. Bookstores and record stores, which are expected to have low inventory turnover, expect to rotate their inventory every six months. Coin shops and stamp shops expect an inventory turn over every six to nine months. Darci wrote a nice article explaining how to legally con consultants into not returning inventory. The sole purpose of that article was so that would be director does not take a financial hit, when the consultant inevitably quits Mary Kay, and discovers that they can get 90% back. Tracking such things, you'll discover that Mary Kay (Corporate) in the last three years, has made a number of significant changes in both how, and the time it takes for them to process the refund. That discontinued products show up in quantity on ebay, merely reinforces the fact that front loading is standard operating procedure. It is not illegal for a consultant to sell product on eBay. It might be a violation of the contract one has with eBay. Furthermore, a good lawyer could get that contract nullified, on the basis that the terms in it are unconscionable. Mary Kay products have been available on eBay since at least 2000. Whist anecdotal evidence is subjective, the hard financial data that Mary Kay publishes supports the anecdotal evidence. It's pretty hard to claim that there are as many "dissatisfied ex-consultants" as "satisfied current consultants", when there is a turnover rate of almost 70% per year. (That figure alone indicates that something is very wrong with the recruiting process.) The Direct Sales Association has publicly admitted that all of its members are in violation of its code of ethics, and that it does not expect any of them to adhere to its code of ethics. Equinox International is merely one example that demonstrates the falseness of the claim that the DSA does not admit pyramids. There is a huge difference between the compensation scheme for Mary Kay, and other product based pyramid schemes, and that paid by other sales organizations. For starters, other organizations don't pay on the basis of products purchased by the sales force. Equinox International demonstrates the inaccuracy of what you wrote about a pyramid scheme.jonathon (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jonathon, but your allegations simply are not correct nor factual. I'm not "claiming" that inventory is not mandatory - it is clearly printed in all training materials provided by Mary Kay! I'm not sure how official, printed documentation can be so easily disregarded! My comments regarding the training of directors is also not "flat out wrong" - I AM a Director trained by Mary Kay and simply will not tolerate your dismissal. I challenge you to find published Mary Kay materials that train Directors in any way other than the one I've described. I am amazed that you so easily generalize "a consistent pattern" of front-loading - in what world? Yours? Not mine. With regards to the "how to be an NSD in 1000 days" - the only thing I could find when I Googled that is some sort of toolkit DESIGNED BY A CONSULTANT who references a speech given by "a National" as the basis for the toolkit - are you kidding me? So perhaps *one* National Sales Director is giving that sort of advice. Doesn't mean it's advocated by Mary Kay or even any other representative of Mary Kay. Since we are all independent business owners, it is the prerogative of that (supposed) national to advocate her idea. I can't speak for the company and their thoughts about it (if it's true), other than to say there is nothing officially printed by Mary Kay that advocates becoming a National Sales Director in 1000 days. Let's not lump support by the entire company behind the (supposed) statements of one person - statements I couldn't even verify, by the way.
You allude to "tracking such things" as inventory return to Mary Kay and that they've implemented changes. Are you an employee of Mary Kay that you can make such a statement without facts to back it up?
"DARCI" is a mascot for training, nothing more. There are NO documents from Mary Kay that describe "how to legally con consultants into not returning inventory." And *I* am accused of POV Pushing?
According to the Dallas Morning News article Nov 24th, 2006, the issues of Blackmon v Mary Kay are not about "front-loading" at all but about business practices that do not align with the terms of her Independent Sales Director agreement. The article states, "She was accused of placing a sales order in another person's name; endorsing the business of a family friend; selling hostess aprons, instructional DVDs, CDs and travel vouchers; and promoting lending services from a third party." The article goes on to state that Ms. Blackmon was officially warned to cease and desist for years before her termination. I will be interested to see what happens, ans I know Ms. Blackmon is very successful and highly respected. I do not understand how this suit supports your argument of "front-loading."
Selling Mary Kay on ebay is not illegal, you are correct - I was not clear: it is a direct violation of the terms of the Beauty consultant agreement to "display or (sell) Mary Kay products in public, retail or service establishments of any kind is inconsistent with the terms of (the Independent Beauty Consultant Agreement General Terms and Conditions.)" Selling products on ebay as an independent beauty consultant is prohibited under this clause, and discovery of this infraction is cause for termination.
As for not being able to sell $3600 within 6 months - I did it in less than four weeks, and I am far from alone. I am not saying every experience will be mine, but your argument is that *no one* can do it nor can anyone expect to do it. Many do. It just depends on the work ethic of the consultant in question - success in this business is up to each individual.
Equinox International is not a member of the DSA. When it was ruled by the FTC to be a pyramid in 2000, it was no longer a member. Mary Kay is a member in good standing with the DSA. Nowhere on the DSA website does it state anything CLOSE to your statement "The Direct Sales Association has publicly admitted that all of its members are in violation of its code of ethics, and that it does not expect any of them to adhere to its code of ethics." Making such a HUGE generalization requires proof - please provide it if you have it.
Lastly, your statement, "For starters, other organizations don't pay on the basis of products purchased by the sales force" is incorrect - independent contractors are NOT employees of Mary Kay. We are independent contractors; we are our own business owners who sell Mary Kay products. To further my example, any company that sells product to Target for resale pays it's employees, it's bills, other costs of doing business from the profit margin. For Mary Kay, I am the retail outlet - not the staff. My purchases mean the very same thing as if Mary Kay sold in a retail store. And just like a retail store, sometimes product is returned and do affect the bottom line. Those figures are real for Mary Kay, Revlon, Lancome - it's a rule of business. And any commission, based on the business structure of the company, is a cost of doing business and so paid from the profit margin.
I am very, very sorry that you obviously had a negative experience with Mary Kay, and it is also obvious that we are not going resolve this issue. I would respectfully ask that you go through the changes I've made line by line and not arbitrarily delete them - I've tried to create a balanced view, keeping both positive and negative aspects for the reader. If I was totally pro-MK in the article, I would have deleted any and all negative references! But I didn't - I believe all sides of the issue deserve a voice, and the previous article was incredibly skewed to the negative. With that in mind, I also believe that you can't delete information based on your feelings. The law is clear - Mary Kay is NOT a pyramid. Period. And I simply can't allow a wikipedia article to make false allegations that it is! OperaDivaBabe (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Official documentation can be disregarded until Mary Kay Corporate refuses to allow an initial purchase of more than US$600, and requires verification that at least 70% of previously purchased inventory has been sold to bona fide thrid party retail customers. By establishing Inventory levels for recognition, that are well above both the mean and mode for retail sales by consultants in a calender year, Mary Kay Corporate is unofficially endorsing front loading. Go read the descriptions that consultants have given of their experience returning inventory on The Pink Truth, Pinking Sheers, and similar websites. It is pretty obvious that the company has made major, significant changes in how they handle inventory returns, and steps they are taking that are legal, to minimize that type of return. One of the business practices in Blakmon v Mary Kay was inventory loading. It got lost in the other things, because it was the first official admission by corporate that it knew of such going ons. I didn't say one couldn't sell US$3,600 within six months, but rather that it was several orders of magnitude above the norm. Equinox International is major embarrassment for the DSA, because it was using it as an example of the integrity of its members, knowing that there were a number of active civil and criminal investigations of it. The beauty consultants are Mary Kay's sales force. In bona fide sales organization, the sales manager is paid on the real productivity of the team. In Mary Kay, the director is paid according to the alleged productivity of the team. As Unitnet shows, that productivity is not related to bona fide retail sales, but to the psychological pressure that the director inflicts upon their unit, in the name of "team spirit". The law is clear that Mary Kay is a product based pyramid scheme. jonathon (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Official documentation can be disregarded..." That pretty much says it all, I suppose. I'm finished here - there's no point in arguing with someone who refuses to use facts or substantiate arguments with anything other than slander. The law IS clear - Mary Kay is NOT a product-based pyramid scheme. End of story. Have a nice day. OperaDivaBabe (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the official documentation can be ignored, is because Mary Kay Corporate encourages the violation of its poli9cies, by ref8using to clamp down on National Directors, Directors, and Consultants who violate their polices., And the mere fact that they refuse to adhere to either FTC rules, or the Amway Safe Harbour Defence, reinforces the position that they do not care about the polices, using them as window dressing in their support fleecing people of their money. jonathon (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My last statement: Don't you think the FTC, the SEC, and the states with anti-pyramid laws would be working OVERTIME to bring charges to SUCH a high profile company as Mary Kay were it in such blatant violation of the laws as you allege? You can argue inaccuracies and anecdotes all day long - the simple fact is that while you are entitled to your opinions, I would hope that you could rise above your POV to help create a balanced article about the company. Since you are unable to do that, we are at an impasse. OperaDivaBabe (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Economics. Neither the FTC nor the various state attorney-generals have the budget, or manpower required for a successful prosecution. jonathon (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research / Unverified Claims

[edit]

Would the person who added the "unverified claims" tag either list their concerns here, or add [citation needed] tags to the article, where appropriate. This tag consists of two braces "{ {" then the word "fact", then two braces " }} ", with no spaces between any of the parts.(IOW, delete the space between the first two braces.) jonathon (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "mkcanada2007earnings" :
    • [http://www.marykay.ca/en/home/earnings-representation.html Mary Kay (Canada) Reported earnings]
    • [http://www.marykay.ca/Display.asp?PageID=1484&LanguageID=1&Directory=Home Mary Kay (Canada) Reported earnings]

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consultant Turnover Rate

[edit]

I do not see the numbers that are used to calculate consultant turnover on the reference link provided:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/businessopprule/522418-11952.pdf Mary Kay Letter to the FTC regarding proposed changes in the rules governing MLMs

Please point out to me where these numbers are. I'm not sure if I'm missing something.

Also, the reference link for the Canadian numbers just takes me to the MK Canadian website. The posted number doesn't say what year it is based on nor can I find where they are basing this on the current site. Please advise on this as well. Thank you! PublicKnowledege300 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to move to delete this entire section if adequate information on where these statistics came from or new statistics with proper citations are not provided. PublicKnowledege300 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added this section back in. That data is in the cited documents. jonathon (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earnings subsection

[edit]

Who wrote this section? "Mary Kay reveals as little about the financial side of the company as it can." This is clearly not a neutral tone. Revert to changes made by PublicKnowledege300 Mattl1983 (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Applause does not contain financial information about the company. It reports the commissions paid to some consultants and directors.jonathon (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently says that "there is very little reliable information about actual earnings by consultants", and that's not true. Applause _does_ provide the actual earnings of consultants.Mattl1983 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Applause lists the amount that allegedly is paid in commissions to "top" consultants. It does not list reimbursements to Mary Kay by directors or consultants. Neither does it list reimbursements by Mary Kay to consultants or directors. Furthermore, it does not provide mean, mode, or median earnings from retail sales, wholesale purchases, recruiting, or other means of generating revenue. Nor does it list expenses that consultants and directors usually encounter. Nor does it list any corporate financial data. Gross sales to consultants is not a meaningful financial statistics -- a report can truly state gross earnings of US$3,000,000,000, blissfully ignoring the US$1,000,000,000 that it spent to comply with the 90% buy back that federal and state law mandate.jonathon (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I get your point: there isn't a lot of published financial data out there. It would be nice if there was, but there isn't. However, I still don't like the language here. As a private company, they have a right to not publish this information (unless I am mistaken). Instead of implying an intent to conceal information, can we just say that the financial data is limited? I'd really appreciate some neutrality in the language - that's all I'm asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattl1983 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Applause provides data for the US market only. The article provides no data on retail sales in China --- which is required under PRC law. (I couldn't even find a hint of that data on the Mary Kay (PRC) website). Whilst Mary Kay (Corporate) does not have a legal obligation to release their financial data, they have the moral obligation to provide _accurate_ financial data to those who desire to participate in the alleged opportunity. The financial data in Applause provides a misleading representation of how much a consultant can reasonably be expected to earn. (It is biased towards the highest wholesale product purchases. It seldom, if ever, provides bona fide third party retail sales data. It omits the amount that The data released by Mary Kay (Canada) provides a slightly better picture, but still omits how much can be reasonably expected in bona fide third party retail sales. The US$1,444 figure assumes that all product that is purchased is sold by consultants. Something that is demonstrably false, as demonstrated by both the financials for the various liquidators of Mary Kay products, and the "returned at 90%" trackers on various websites.jonathon (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some removals

[edit]

I just made two edits to the article, removing a fairly large amount of text. The first edit was to remove 2 sections of criticism that appear to be original research. Unless there are reliable third party sources that these controversies actually are controversies, as opposed to just someone with an axe to grind POV pushing in Wikipedia, this should stay gone. The second edit was to remove a section that does appear to have some 3rd party reliable sourcing, but it was written in a highly POV way.

In general, companies of this type (multi-level marketing) are often criticized as "pyramid schemes" but that term has a very particular meaning, and while it can be ok to include criticisms of the business model (if they are properly sourced), it is not ok to claim, as this article did, that the company is breaking the law or doing something unethical without a very careful and solid source.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

In the article referencing the "pyramid like structure" criticism of the company, a key part (that makes this statement less biased) was left out that I added. From the article "The company, though, isn't without its critics, many of whom focus on Mary Kay's pyramid-like marketing structure but acknowledge the company's operations aren't violating any laws." PublicKnowledege300 (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the current crop of people pointing out that MK --- or at least their consultants --- are violating US and International law, are current beauty consultants, and not its critics.jonathon (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"pointing out" is a success verb, meaning that you are making the assertion yourself that they are currently breaking the law. That's an accusation you'd best be prepared to back up. If there are reliable sources with proof of this (i.e. newspaper reports of criminal convictions) please produce them. Otherwise, you might want to back up a bit and consider your manner of speaking. There may be accusations (direct sales companies are often accused of various things), and you'll need to document those with reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing who is or is not making the accusations. I am pointing out that company is recognized as not violating any laws by the opponents quoted in the reference provided (whomever those opponents may or may not be). By calling the company an illegal structure (a product based pyramid scheme) but omitting the fact that opponents acknowledge no legal wrongdoing by the company (a direct quote from the article referenced), it makes the statement misleading and biased. I added the acknowledgement in to make the statement more accurate and less biased.PublicKnowledege300 (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures table

[edit]

What is going on with the sales table "Mary Kay Sales Figures"? Why is this the first section of the article after the lead? It seems like a huge mess of badly sourced, very specific info that fails WP:NOT in a half-dozen ways. It's way, way too promotional. It's vague in important areas, and specific in trivial ones. Most of the fields are 'unknown', which kinda defeats the purpose of a table. Is there something I'm missing, or can I delete it and integrate the three or four worthy, non-primary sources into the rest of the article? Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That table was inserted into the article, as an attempt to minimize the conflict that erupted here, and elsewhere, regarding numerous claims about the Mary Kay business opportunity. It is the only set of data that all sides concede, albeit grudgingly, is "probably accurate". Whilst it would be nice to have fewer "unknown figure" in the table, that won't happen unless Mary Kay Corporate is more forthcoming with that data --- something I doubt will happen, because of where, how, and why that specific table has been used. p (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit history, it looks like a hard-fought battle, but it was added about 8 years ago, and it has not aged well. As a table it's taking up a lot of real estate for very little info, and many of the sources are dead, primary links of questionable value. A 'history' section could be added, and much of the older info could be incorporated there, while the more recent info could be selectively added to the 'Business model' and various sales earnings subsections. Seem reasonable? Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Mary Kay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dual marketing/multi-level marketing

[edit]

Rofobowman, "dual marketing" does not seem to be a well defined term, nor is it described by any article here on Wikipedia. In contrast, the term "multi-level marketing" has a straightforward description: "the sales force is compensated not only for sales they generate, but also for the sales of the other salespeople that they recruit". This matches Mary Kay's commission practices, where senior consultants receive commission on junior consultants' purchases, and directors receive commission on all recruited consultants. Furthermore, numerous sources refer to Mary Kay as practicing multi-level marketing, including CNN, the Michigan Attorney General, and the Chicago Tribune. Whether or not Mary Kay is "dual marketing" does not change that they exhibit the characteristics of multi-level marketing. Laoris (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mary Kay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Kay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mary Kay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text replacement for the giant table

[edit]

Hello all. As I understand it, this page has seen a few discussions on the way the information is presented in the Sales Figures table. I hope we can agree that Its usefulness has passed, with most fields being marked "unknown". I believe the idea was to give an idea of the rate of growth of the company. Surely this can be achieved with a paragraph of text and a more selective use of details.

Proposal for discussion: replace what comes after the sentence “As a private company, Mary Kay releases few details about the average income of its sellers.”, by the following text:

Starting in 1963 with 318 consultants and sales of $198,154, Mary Kay gradually expanded its reach first within the United States, then internationally. The company exceeded $500 million in sales through 220,000 consultants by 1991. In 1995, its sales had grown to $950 million, including $25 million in Russia. As of 2017, Mary Kay’s continuous multinational expansion had seen its sales grow to $3,7 billion with 2,5 million consultants, 39,000 directors and 600 national directors. … and go on to Manufacturing Plants, which looks fine.

Please improve on this if you think it goes in the right direction. Maybe slip something about China in there. Robincantin (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal page clean up

[edit]

I have removed a section that utilized primary sources and dead/unarchived sources that added no discernible value to the page. As well as a spam link that had no mention of the attached content within. I am posting here as the content removal was a larger portion and should remain removed as it added no intrinsic value to the page. Tipaloo (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Kay&oldid=1207596145"