First of all, if someone doesn't like it that our company requests of us to wear dresses/skirts at MK functions (and this is one of the few requests Mary Kay Ash ever had of us)...they don't have to do it, you can't be forced...it's a request. If you feel it's talked about too much and it bothers you, then you don't have to stay in the company either. I mean really, I read on here and am amazed that some of the people who seem to have the most complaints don't just give up their business that they seem to dislike anyways and start using another brand. I mean if you are that dissatisfied with MK, then why even support their products? That just perplexes me a bit. I couldn't use a product from a company that I felt was doing things wrong and unethical. I wouldn't want to support them nor be a part of their organization.
I run a meeting and when I was a new and naive Director trying to "reinvent the wheel" I decided that during the winter I would let my ladies wear pants but stressed that they have to be professional because we do have guests at our meetings. That may sound a bit childish I understand but go ahead and run a meeting with 20-30 different personality types and see how easy it is to get the same point across to everyone, I had to be specific or I knew what would happen and what did happen in spite of my explanation. The first week started with dressy pants/pant suits, then a few weeks later we had pants and blouses/sweaters, the next week it was pants/dark jeans and sweaters/sweatshirts and then finally it happened...faded blue jeans with holes and t-shirts/sweatshirts. Well needless to say, I had to request we go back to dresses/skirts and some to this day still go back and forth with pants because of what I started over 3 years ago.
My first point is this, what do the OTHER professional beauty consultants wear? Go to the Department Stores and see what those gals behind the counters are wearing? Now they are employed and can be warned/watched/reprimanded but when my consultants are independent and that also means independent of me, I for one appreciate that MK set the standard of what she wanted us to wear and I just keep teaching it. I cannot confront one for wearing jeans with holes anymore than I can confront someone wearing pants, I just talk about the image of a Dress/Skirt and eventually it catches on. I have had some new consultants start out looking like they came from a homeless shelter and within a few weeks of being around the other consultants, she catches on and suddenly looks like she could be a top executive for a large corporation. It's breathtaking sometimes to see the turn around!
There is something about a woman putting on a dress or skirt and hose and pumps that makes her feel womanly and attractive. Then it prompts her to fluff her hair and touch up her makeup too. She looks in the mirror and thinks she looks awesome and her attitude lifts up too!
Deep down I am a JEANS gal! Sweatpants are even better! When I finally started wearing dresses/skirts more frequently I started to see a difference in my personality and confidence level. Now it's quite odd but I never wear jeans anymore. I wear nice pants and nice boots with a blazer to a few of my private appointments but at all functions it's a small request to have us all in the MK image and I uphold it because I have seen what happens when we make exceptions. (You can also hide ALOT of flaws in a dress that can be more obvious in pants, i.e. larger thighs or butt, cellulite, bigger stomach,etc...dresses/skirts are forgiving to say the least.)
I am proud of our Image. I don't mind pants but they are for our private appointments if we want to wear them there. It's COLD in my state (VERY COLD!!) and I wear a long black skirt with tights and biker shorts underneath, flannel socks and some sharp black boots that go up to my knees. Your image does make a difference in this business. I can't explain it but if you dress for success then success somehow finds you. It could be the change you will have in your attitude or how people view you. Whatever it may be, it's worth wearing my long black skirt.
Wendy
WendyTurnidge - 10 Feb 2004
Bunny here - let's see if I can address your perplexity first: Let's take the example of IBM, for the sake of comparison. As you may or may not remember, depending on your age, but in any case surely have heard, IBM was once a company known for, among other things, its stringent dress code, with a male workforce uniformly fitted out in buttoned down, pre-Xfiles "FBI agent" style. At that time, IBM was, as the song says: "king of the hill, top of the heap" and its cookie cutter styled workforce both recognized and recognizable everywhere.
Well, came the day when there were people at IBM who saw change all around - both in the general culture and in the business environment - and these folks wanted, not to leave IBM for other, more progressive companies, but to stay and help their own company change and evolve, and, by such change and evolution, stay successful.
In the end, those who agitated for change and did not jump ship to other, more progressive companies, turned out to be IBM's best friends and saving grace: the once unassailable giant among international corporations almost went under, but, at the eleventh hour, succeeded in reinventing itself by (better late than never) embracing change. Today, the company is among the leaders in business in embracing the "new" - choosing and promoting opensource technology.
You see, I don't disagree that how we dress affects not only our passing mood, but, as well, in sometimes surprising and seeemingly inexplicable ways, our deeper sense of self and world. Because this is true, dress codes are not merely minor prompts or inconveniences, but rather the outward expression of a company's view of, and relationship with, self and the world.
Seen from that perspective, the static MK image bespeaks a static - even backward - corporate worldview and ethos.
Maybe the people associated with MK who would like to see the company embrace a more contemporary worldview, and forward-looking ethos, recognize that an easy first step would be to embrace a more flexible and dynamic aesthetic and image; and maybe they like the company not too little, as you posit, but too much, to just accept things as they are.
The ethics issue, being well addressed in other opinions/colloquys on this board and elsewhere, is probably here best left aside.
As for feeling more "womanly and attractive" in a dress: some do; some decidedly do not, but, rather, feel quite feminine, as well as professional and comfortable, in trousers: Here is a partial list of careers in which a professional appearance does NOT require (or, in some cases, admit of) a dress or skirt, much less hose and pumps: paramedic/emt; physician/pa; firefighter; attorney/paralegal; software developer; website designer; copywriter/editor; proofreader; chemist; physicist; professor; surveyor; teacher; interior designer; custom draper; costumer; restorer; historian/archivist; florist; sculptor/painter; ceramicist; veterinarian/veterinary ass't; photojournalist/journalist; camerawoman; war correspondent; haircutter/colourist; chef; chocolatier; dairywoman; farmer; relief worker/refugee aide; social worker; psychologist; shipping agent; engineer; phlebotomist; shelter worker; lab technician; animal rescue worker; park ranger; ship's captain; aviator/pilot; navigator; viniculturist/vintner; physical/occupational/massage therapist; gardener/landscape architect; horticulturalist/nurserywoman/arborist; nurse/cna; therapeutic aesthetician; printer; home health caregiver/hospice worker; OTR diver; and so on, and so on ...
And in respect to the women who work at the cosmetic counters in department stores, well, wasn't/isn't that a central and essential part of the MK promise: to help women get away from working for someone else, get out from under someone else's rules and imposed limits, that they might flourish through independent business ownership - doing it for themselves, doing it their own way? The very fact that you used the phrase "I LET my ladies wear pants" in a situation where common sense alone should have dictated suitably warm apparel, including trousers, leaves the unpleasant impression that perhaps independent consultants are not really meant to be truly independent, after all.
And last, but certainly not least: not every woman aspires to look "like the executive of a large corporation" - in fact, many corporate executives themselves reject and eschew a stereotypical "executive" style. Oh, and, speaking of stereotypes: as a former housemother of a shelter for homeless women and children, I can, and do, assure you that not everyone "from a homeless shelter" looks quite as you imply.
But, since you brought it up: disadvantaged women, disenfranchised women, functional but chronically ill and/or disabled women - all these, presumably, are as worthy as anyone of the MK opportunity; and, in the former instance they may not find the MK style of dress to their taste, or to the taste of their market, while in the latter they may find it impossibly uncomfortable, or just impossible, to wear. Young, sporty, outdoorsy, arty, edgy, urban chic - all these types are potential customers who may feel, when they see that MK image approaching, that it says nothing more than "this is your father's oldsmobile - quick, make your getaway now!" lol
If the MK image works for you, both personally and professionally, where you live and with your market, that's great, and there is clearly no reason to fix what's not broken. But your experience is just that: your experience; and others have a different experience, and they would like to see MK learn from their different experience, and grow. Keep the old, wherever it works - just add some new. That doesn't sound so difficult, and surely it's worth at least trying.
Bunny Watson - 10 Feb 2004
Bunny, I don't need you to address anything about this because I am not perplexed. In regards to "add something new", I tried it as I said above and it degraded into everyone looking like they were dressed to do landscaping at my meeting. I am in a position where I see how image benefits consultants. Your complicated to read posts about this topic is your view point and my posts are my view point. The difference is, I am in a position where I am looked to for direction from consultants who WANT to build. When I said I "let" my consultants wear pants, it's because they look to me to guide them. They look to me to show them what makeup they should wear, if their foundation shade is correct, if their attitude is right in a certain situation, if their outfit makes them look professional. I request skirts/dresses at my meetings because that's what MK felt strongly about and it frankly makes it quite easy for me because I am only reiterating what our founder requested of us. I don't care what other people wear in other businesses because those businesses have their own standards and this is one of MK's standards. One of my consultants can go to an appointment in her PJ's for all I care but when we are all together at a meeting with guests present, then we try to honor what MK wanted. I cannot explain this to someone who is not interested in actively building her business because she is not seeking advice on how to make herself more successful in THIS career. I have consultants who do this very part time and if they came to a meeting, I know they would be in slacks. I am not concerned about those ladies images, I am concerned about the ones who come week after week and are obviously building a business. If she is at my meeting week after week, then it's pretty safe to say that she agrees with the requests of MK and she is upholding that. I do get pants at my meetings once in awhile but those gals almost always apporach me and let me know why and my response is, "no big deal but I can see you notice it and that's what counts". Do you see my point here, I am preaching to the choir if I am talking to someone working and building but if it's someone else, like yourself, who are finding reasons that they don't want to work their MK or even associate with it for this reason or that or maybe they are just in it to get products at 50% off, then it's all a mute point and image doesn't pertain to those folks. My homeless shelter analogy was just an analogy. I typed that in and sat back and thought what else I could say because I knew that comment would pull, specifically you, out of the woodwork. You don't see many skirts, dresses, nylons and pumps at a homeless shelter, I know this from volunteering at several but you do find that when those ladies are primped up a bit, their whole demeanor changes. I was called once from a gal at a shelter and she wanted to know about MK. We met and I offered to bring her to a thrift store to find her a "power outfit" because she told me that she wanted to look nicer to do this business. Another gal came straight to my house and I gave her clothes straight from my closet. She is still in my Unit and doing great.
Yes these women are less fortunate and sometimes are there due to reasons out of their control but when you are in MK and going to meetings there's no excuse for coming in ripped jeans and an old, faded, dirty sweatshirt. We are in the beauty industry. It's interesting to watch the faces of the guests when a consultant stands up and introduces herself as a Beauty Consultant and looks dishoveled. Our guests and customers deserve more than that. Our guests want to look at us and see a good repersentation of the products. Pants degrade into Jeans...period! Wendy
Gee, now I'm the perplexed one: Just above you say you "don't need you [meaning me, Bunny] to address anything about this because I am not perplexed." but you had previously said, in your initial post under this number (110): " ... I mean if you are that dissatisfied with MK, then why even support their products? That just perplexes me a bit." So, I was attempting to address that remark. Also, since I posted Opinion 109 on the topic of MK image and dress code, I thought perhaps your posting immediately after at 110 was intended to, in part, carry discussion forward on the same topic, amplifying it a bit at the same time. However, no sooner do I get the impression that I am just flat disinvited to the party (is this your party, here, Wendy? if so, I didn't know, and apologize for "crashing"), I see the following: "My homeless shelter analogy was just an analogy. I typed that in and sat back and thought what else I could say because I knew that comment would pull, specifically you, out of the woodwork." Well, if you don't need or want me to address anything you post, why did you use language that you "knew," in your words, "would pull specifically ... [me]... out of the woodwork." There are plenty of other apt analogies from which to choose.
The funny thing is, I'M NOT against anyone dressing any way they please, including the traditional MK way; and if anyone feels that sporting a certain style will enhance their self-esteem, as well as their business development and opportunities, I say, go for it! All I'm suggesting is that there may be a variety of styles that will serve those aims equally well, depending on the wearer, the local customs and mores, and the "audience" of potential and actual customers.
Why so hostile and dismissive toward me? I don't feel at all hostile, or dismissive, toward you; in fact, I am genuinely happy for you that you are having, and helping others to have, such an apparently good experience in MK. I post here as I do only in the hope that those who aren't having that same good experience might find that they could do so by simply taking a slightly different approach to the business. Gosh, what on earth is so offensive in that, if in fact there is anything offensive at all?
My listing of the various careers in which professional attire does not include a dress, etc., was intended to demonstrate that women in many walks of life want to look good, and might welcome seeing a "beauty consultant" who dresses as they do, because it would then be instantly and clearly seen just how the beauty products on offer could successfully be used in those different personal styles and work environments. That makes sense to me, maybe not to you; okay, reasonable people can reasonably disagree.
Once again, in re your experience as a shelter volunteer, it is YOUR experience, not a universally comprehensive experience; there are, in fact, many middle class women, for example, who are in shelters as a consequence of domestic violence, loss of employment through longterm illness, etc., etc., and yes, they often bring all or some of their clothes with them. Also, in many cities, shelters provide free, new, clothes and shoes for office and other employment, donated by manufacturers and retailers; so, all that taken together, you do see more than a few dresses, skirts, nylons and pumps in many, although, of course not all, shelters. Oh, and if someone was looking for a "power outfit," and it was post-1980s, she'd better get a biz lingo update, as well as a makeover, lol.
In any case, I fully respect and admire your desire to help both yourself and your unit members by recommending what you feel, from your experience, to be the very best course to follow. Contrary to your own statement, you have explained it very well, to me and to anyone reading this board. It just happens that not everyone who reads here agrees with you (and not only neophytes like myself, but, as well, a number of far more experienced persons): your advice to consultants is not seen to be, from other perspectives and experience, 100% applicable to 100% of the consultants, 100% of the time. So your seemingly rather testy and aggressively discounting attitude toward me appear oddly misplaced, at the very least.
Not everyone thinks that exchanging trousers for jeans is best described as "Pants degrade into jeans," and, by inference, that jeans are simply never good biz wear - you do think that way, okay, you do. Others don't. Whole industries dealing with fashion, advertising and pr don't, for three significant examples. A dirty sweatshirt ... well, you probably would need to be in agricultural work or high tech creative for that to sell, lol.
(I was making a joke there, please note the "lol")
So, can we stay open-minded here? But heck, Wendy, if this is your party, and I'm disinvited, I'll just crawl back into the woodwork, lol; it's nice in there, smells all cedar-y ...
Bunny - 11 Feb 2004
ps - I reread my previous response, and with the exception of one punctuation error and one spelling error (both now corrected), I can't see where it might be hard to read, but if you found it so, perhaps you mistook the tone and/or content? if so, perhaps you took something amiss where it was not intended - ?
Now Bunny, what I said originally was, “I read on here and am amazed that some of the people who seem to have the most complaints don't just give up their business that they seem to dislike anyways and start using another brand. I mean if you are that dissatisfied with MK, then why even support their products? That just perplexes me a bit. I couldn't use a product from a company that I felt was doing things wrong and unethical. I wouldn't want to support them nor be a part of their organization." What does that have to do with IBM? You went into this entire schpeal about IBM after saying, "let's see if I can address your perplexity first: Let's take the example of IBM, for the sake of comparison. As you may or may not remember, depending on your age, but in any case surely have heard, IBM was once a company known for, among other things, its stringent dress code..." My point Bunny was...I don't need clarification on the dress code/MK image and that’s exactly where you headed with it. Hence my comment, “I don't need you to address anything about this because I am not perplexed (about image).” I have since added, ABOUT IMAGE in case it wasn't clear.
I do hope you understand this so it can be put to rest.
My weekend is filled with a MK expo and I have to be up early to set up for my gals who are working the booth. I cannot add more, however I would like to. I simply started with my viewpoint on the image and now here we are breaking it into little pieces. I would comment on everything but cannot at this point. If there is something inparticular you still need clarified by me, let me know and I will be happy to comment later.
I do welcome all the wonderful emails and I am eager to help give ideas like I have offered to some of you before. It does appear that there are many consultants who need ideas so I am also willing to give you my teleconference numbers if you call or email me. We do New Cons. Trg, Seasoned Cons Trg. and a Dedicated to Directorship class. I make it a priority to get back to you but please again, feel free to call me at (612) 588-1569. I can talk quicker than I can type and I can be more thorough. I am just inserting this here because I am finding it easier to just take a phone call then to write a long reply email to the emails I get but they are still welcome if that's easier for you. Again thanks for the upbeat emails and I will do my best to help you.
Night, Wendy
Wendy:
Oy. I was NOT clarifying the image/dress code, I was clarifying (or attempting to clarify) the position of people like myself and Laura vis a vis the image/dress code issue!!!!!!!! So you misunderstood entirely "where ... [I]... headed" as well as the point of my IBM comparison: the point of including the IBM story was simply to illustrate that: 1) people can be loyal to a company at the same time that they want to see it embrace positive change !!!!!!!! and 2) this loyal insistence on institutional change can lead to a successful outcome for all concerned!!!!!
I have said this directly, as above, in numerous prior posts, but felt that maybe an illustration from the real world would better clarify MY POSITION (and that of others like me), which you say that you understand, but which, from your remarks, it appears that you actually do not.
The IBM story wasn't a "schpeal" (spiel, actually), but an analogy, which rhetorical device you seem to have trouble with since you missed the point of Laura's in re the USA/MK, as well, and seemed at a loss for another when one that you once chose was likely to "pull specifically ... [me]... out of the woodwork" - and in your own above analogy, you actually succeeded in making one of our points for us: yes, pressure brought to bear on a company can bring about positive change (A & F), but you seemingly fail to see that such pressure can be applied in many ways other than by boycotting products.
I was actually saying something positive, not negative, when offering the IBM analogy; and, further, believing that a company is basically sound and would be capable of, and willing to, change, and, therefore, choosing to remain associated with that company and to work for that change, is POSITIVE, not negative. After all, to bring it home to MK: MK stopped animal testing only some time around '98 or '99, from what I hear, and I'm sure there was plenty of internal pressure, from consultants and directors, as well as pressure from market resistance and public image damage, that helped to bring about that important change in company policy and practice.
Yikes. You know, this isn't an argument on this board (or at least, it needn't be), but a discussion, and two or more viewpoints on any issue, or issues, raised here can simultaneously have equal weight, truth, and merit. I don't have to be wrong for you to be right, and vice versa. It isn't even a matter of wrong and right, it's a matter of a variety of experience.
It's clear that you misunderstood what I said in my response here at 110, and you somehow took offense at the (mistaken) impression you received. In contrast, I think I understand you very well, and I accept that, in your experience, your advocated adoption by all "serious" consultants of the traditional MK image /dress code has proved the way to go. That's fine, and I have no quarrel with that, as far as it goes: which is as far as your, and any similar, experience can reach. It's just that such experience is not UNIVERSAL: other consultants and directors have had and/or are having a different experience.
That's all. That's it. Many of those having an experience different from yours just want to continue with MK AND be true to their own experience. There is tradition, sure, and that's great, but (some hope) there is also room for change.
So I'll not take offense at the (gratuitous) crawling out of woodwork stuff; and I hope that this rectified any misapprehension you had/have.
Oh, and one more thing:
Reasonable people can reasonably disagree; but, if Laura, say, is reporting her experience, then however my experience may differ, I cannot say that her reported experience is WRONG, I can only say that it differs (or not) from mine. And if I feel her report is unclear, I can ask for clarification and supporting facts; but still, if what she reports differs from my, or another's, experience, I still cannot characterize her reported experience as misleading or wrong, because, however regrettable or exceptional, IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. It is a sequence of real events, there it is, and we should all be able to discuss it (and things like it) without any name calling, spurious accusations, or sarcasm.
Here's what I know from my experience, Wendy, not what I think or imagine: my market (not yours, but mine) does NOT respond well to the traditional MK image/dress code; on the contrary, they are TURNED OFF by it and for them it reinforces many, many negative perceptions about MK. NO ONE I KNOW dresses like that, and I know MANY women in the professional and biz worlds. So, I don't really care what the MK company does or doesn't do about advocating the image/dress code: if I ever hope to be successful where I work and live, I wouldn't get to square one if I wore it, so I won't. I was just sharing that, in case others were/are having the same, or similar, experience.
Just sharing. Not invalidating anyone. Just sharing. There's either room for all sincere contributions and persons, or there isn't - in the company and in the discussion. So we'll see.
Bunny - 12 Feb 2004
Laura, I realize you have a beef about the prizes being taxed. Heres a scenerio: If you go on a game show and win money or prizes, (or even a lottery for that matter) do you get to keep everything you WON? No, you are TAXED because the law says so. Thats not the fault of MK. The nice thing about it is that you are winning something and getting the recognition, and MK has found that MOST women thrive on it. In fact, some women join MK just to be recognized through prizes. You do earn and win those prizes, but unfortunately our government wants a piece of the action too and so we must pay taxes. Here's a story from Mary Kay: When she began she wanted to give the ladies a prize, and she had these gold cups made and once you sold so much you got a gold cup. The production requirement was high and she was told by her advisors that it wouldn't work. Why would they work for something like a gold cup? But they did and soon women had so many of those gold cups she had to develop a program where women could trade in those cups! We love the prizes and love getting them, being taxed unfortunately is a small price to pay. Again, not to the fault of MK who has to abide by tax laws. In our perfect world, MK should pay the tax since they are giving them to us, but so should anyone who is giving out a prize like the lottery. But thats not going to happen, so please drop that issue.
Mary Kay can be a wonderful company to work for, but in my opinion you have the power to make it so. Not everyone is cut out for it, and thats o.k. You do have the potential to make a lot of money, but you are going to have to work for it. The main benefits to MK is that you do not have a limit on how much you can make, sure its challenging and a lot of work to get to those highly covetted positions of Top National, but it CAN be done with effort. In a normal job you usually top out at a certain salary and can not make anymore. Your stuck! Also, you work when you want. If your child has something at school in the afternoon and you have an 8-5 job, can you go? Sometimes if you put leave in. I work for the State of Nevada and I earn my leave so when I need to do something I can. BUT, I personally don't like being tied to my desk 8-5, monday-friday. MK will allow me eventually to be able to have flexible hours ON MY TERMS. Its a truly energizing thought. Anyways, Off my soap box, I know that there are people who have bad experiences, I'm one of them. But I did give it another chance because I truly believe it is a good company and its working out! I have a great director who is not pushy (which I too hate!) and a unit that is awesome! For those who did get the unfortunate bad experience, God has other plans. I believe that everything happens for a reason. Mine was even though it was bad, it was a time to be introduced into the oppurtunity and plant the seed so I may join again at a later time with a unit that was for me.
As far as the cost of running a business, that is with any business you have. Come on, can you really think you are going to make money without investing into it first? It takes money to make money! Its all in how smart you are in investing. For those director who have their units pay dues because of where they are located thats just nuts! You are definately going to lose people coming. Like Wendy, there are options: she has a church thats she uses for FREE! My unit was able to secure a location that we share with other units for FREE! Your home is a good place, FOR FREE!! See you have options! Yes samples, marketing costs money but get creative! You don't have to poor everything into your business to have all the tools if you need the profit that bad. Do something else. Everything is YOUR choice, your not set by that many rules. My director flies everywhere for free because she has a credit card where you earn miles when you use it.. she puts all of her purchases with mary kay on her card. Now, she is able to make larger purchases because her business is strong and is able to generate some good miles with that card. But thats what works for her! And again, if you can't afford to go to something, don't! Its your business! If you want to go that badly you'll get out their on two feet and pound the pavement until you have made up enough money to go. Its all in how you work your business. MK on your intouch website does have some company improved ads you can use to place on fliers and in newpapers. They need to make sure you are not possibly tarnishing their company image so, sure things must be approved. But they don't say NO to advertising. You just have to do what they need you to do because they, like I said, have a company to protect as well.
O.k. I'll shut my long winded trap up! I just have a deep respect for this company and truly believe its how you use the tools before you in a productive way
Thanks for your input, and as I've said before, if the image works for you personally, and for your market of potential customers/recruits, that's great. The thing is that in some communities and markets the idea of WOMEN = SKIRT is just never going to fly. I've been (I hope) somewhat circumspect and philosophical in my discussion of this issue, but if I were to post some things that have actually been said to me by potential customers about the traditional MK image, there might be some real dismay and hurt feelings here, so I have decided stick to general statements.
I want to be clear, too, that these comments are coming from successful business and professional women, university graduate students, small business owners, and self-employed professionals - these are not people who have no notion of the work world and its protocols.
I may be wrong, but I don't think Laura's complaints center on the fact that prizes are taxed; I think her objections are far more comprehensive, and have to do with much larger issues: aspects of the compensation structure, yes, she sees problems there; but also, just for starters, she's very concerned about (apparently rampant) intentionally or unintentionally deceptive recruiting practices. There's more to her experience that warrants concern and attention, as well as sympathy; and, as well meaning as accounts of good experiences with MK may be, those accounts do not, and cannot, erase Laura's very real, very distressing, bad experience. And I think that she may well feel that she is not being properly heard, although of course that's my idea, and I do not speak for her on that score.
I also don't think that Laura is so naive as to think that a personal business of any stripe can proceed without effort or investment - again, I think she's really talking about a kind of vagueness, omission, and implied (mis)information in corporate statements and recruiting language that amounts to misrepresentation and/or deceit ... and this she finds deeply disturbing.
In any case, I'm glad for anyone for whom the MK relationship proves, or has proved, a good one ...I just think that a tour around this board and others like it quickly demonstrates that Laura is hardly alone in her very damaging experience.
And it concerns me that she has been given rather short shrift, for the most part.
After all, if I go to a surgeon and he/she cuts off the wrong leg, and you went to the same surgeon and got a good result, and then I tell you about my experience and you just keep telling me that he/she did a good job for you and for five other people you know, that doesn't help me, does it? And it's possible, in such a case, that the dr is competent, but, say, has an addiction, so only 3 or 4 out of 10 patients have bad outcomes ... but those 3 or 4 still count! And the dr should be scrutinized, and helped to recover from addiction in order to avoid harm to more patients in future. But if no one pays attention to the early patients with bad outcomes, then there will be more and more bad outcomes in that dr's future, barring some other intervention.
Well, MK is the dr and Laura one of the patients with a bad outcome.
Doesn't it make sense to find out where the problem is and encourage some corrective action?
Bunny W - 13 Feb 2004
For those who do not agree with what the MK image is, then don't have anything to do with it. It is the way that the company wants to portray itself. If you don't like the dress code of where you work you either go some place else or deal with it. Either way you have a choice. For many of us in MK, it is traditional and we beleive it to be correct. For those who find it odd or do not like it, go to another Unit or do it your way. You have a choice, and are very much entitled to your opinion.
Laura has on several occasions brought up the tax issue.. read past posts where she goes on and on about it. All I'm saying is while she is blaming Mary Kay for taxing you, it is actually the law. Although I believe she is really trying to convey that there is the illusion that you win the cars and prizes, when in fact you don't and you are taxed, etc. she comes off as blaming MK in general. MK puts out literature about the truth behind earning a car, its the consultants that put a spin on it and make it deceptive. However it is always being preached to be honest about all products and the oppurtunity per Mary Kay herself, but God did tell Adam and Eve not to eat the apple too, and they didn't listen. Most of the consultants in Mary Kay I do believe are in it for themselves, but there are those who are not. And I don't feel it is fair to punish everyone else because of those bad seeds. Thats why we must speak of the good tha tis in the company. I'm not disregarding her experiences with MK at all. I am very aware that there are those who do have negative experiences. All of us that are just stating our positive sides are saying that there is good. I feel your doctor scenerio is a bit radical, although I get your point. I have heard from MANY people in and OUT of MK that have spoke very nicely of what the company did for them. In regards to Laura's situation, its terrible. Its apparent she got the shaft and her national and the company did not back her. Our human nature wants to think something else happened because we have all heard stories that the company backs people. We have heard from those who it has happened to. That doesn't mean it didn't happen to Laura, its just our human nature to wonder. Only they can go at it from their stand point, and Laura can tell her story to warn us about what could happen. But, if all there was were stories about negative things and nobody telling another side of positive, what would everyone believe? Only the negative! We in MK have to tell the positive side as well. If I were in the "doctor" situation I would say that the doctor did a good job for me, and say how terrible for that to happen to the other person and reform should be in the works. That does not mean though that MK should be put out of business like that doctor should. That is more of a long term life issue, whereas, as terrible as what happened is, Laura will be able to move on. Here, she can find forums and open discussions on what happened. Like I have said, I too have had a bad experience. I could very possibly see that what happened to Laura could have happened in my other unit. All I can tell others who are reading is that there are bad, but there is also good! Shouldn't that make anyone feel better? MK does have a lot of reform that could be done, but I think overall they have a great company and should crack down a little more on the bad seeds, then trying to give them second chances. I'm glad there are forums like this for people to read so they can be warned of the terrible things that can happen and hopefully learn what they can do to prevent the wrong doers.
Melissa 2/17/2004
When I read your opener: "For those who do not agree with what the MK image is, then don't have anything to do with it. It is the way that the company wants to portray itself. If you don't like the dress code of where you work you either go some place else or deal with it."
it just amazed me, I guess - I still don't understand why the dress code thing brings up such a love it or leave it attitude ... what if a consultant knows people (potential customers) who would be open to the product, but not the image? What if someone is loyal to the company but truly believes a change would only help the company move forward to greater success?
But then you go on to suggest shifting to another unit or just ignoring the dress code, so I guess those are okay options to you, too, so we really have no argument or difference of opinion, after all.
As for the tax thing, my understanding of Laura's main complaint in respect to that is that the 1099 on the car always reflects the full amount of the car's value for the fiscal year in which it is awarded, whether or not the consultant/director actually derives that full benefit: additionally, there seems to be a three month (90 day) qualifying period in which maintenance on the car is paid even though the car may not actually be in hand until the very end of that 90 day period; and that 90 days will be included also in the taxable compensation as reflected on the 1099; also, if the consultant/director loses the car after a brief period, the compensation value is not pro-rated on the 1099 to reflect the actual period of use of the car. So given that, clearly you'd be better off taking the cash payments, instead of the car, as you would, presumably, only be taxed on the amount you actually received, and would not be liable for any co-payments on either a car or insurance, nor would you owe tax on a benefit you did not receive in full. But I may not understand this properly, so if not, I apologize for further confusing the issue.
And really, sure, absolutely, the good and the bad should be openly and freely discussed, no question. I would never suggest otherwise. The medical dr analogy was not intended as a direct parallel, just as a sort of illustration of the mechanics of the situation. Clearly, the loss of money and time, and even the abuse of good faith, are not to be compared with physical damage or injury.
However, I disagree that in every instance a faltering dr would, or even should, simply be "put out of business" and prevented from practicing: medical license revocation is, in fact, infrequent, and it is much more likely that the competent but troubled physician would be given treatment for the underlying problem and allowed to continue to practice. Which is my suggestion for any company, not only MK, where numerous reports of inadequate and/or innapropriate conduct surface. Treat the underlying problems and improve the health of the whole organization.
That does not, as far as I can see, in any way reflect a negative viewpoint.
In any case, I'm very glad that you are, after an initial bad time of it, now having a good experience with the company; and, of course, wish you all the best for continued success and happiness in your career.
Bunny Watson - 18 Feb 2004
I agree 100% here. I had been using MK products for over a year, when the friend who was selling them to me recruited me. She lives in another part of the country, but she KNOWS that I do NOT fit the MK image. Yet I was not told about the dress code thing until AFTER I signed up and ordered $2400 in inventory.
I'm an outdoorsy type who loves to go to baseball games. That's what most women I know like to do. If I showed up in the typical MK uniform, they would know that I was being fake, and would run away from me. But if I can look good in a ballcap and a baseball jersey, I'm not intimidating to anyone, and I'm more approachable to these women.
I feel as if I am being asked to give up the lifestyle that I love just to do MK properly. I refuse to do so, and that is why I ignore my director's phone calls, and not go to meetings.
I love the products and feel that I can sell them on my own terms. I fail to see the crime in that.
Christine Murphy - 04 Jul 2004
- 24 Jul 2004
The dress code issue was a real problem for me. To begin with, it's hard to find those things in my size without paying a fortune. Second, it's just not me. I am NOT a typical MK lady. I can't walk in heels to save my life and pantyhose and business skirts make me cringe.
In any case, my mother brought something to my attention when we were on the topic. She said that if approached by a woman in a business suit who ultimately wanted to sell her something (even if making friendly small talk), she would not feel comfortable at all. It wouldn't feel friendly to her, it'd feel like a board meeting or something of that sort.
I decided to try her theory. And by golly, she had a point. People seen me in the business outfit and seemed to want to avoid me when I mentioned Mary Kay. They were ready to dart towards the door. I might as well have had "saleswoman" written on my forehead because I know they were dreading a sales pitch. I didn't do that, but this was an experiment anyway. So I deducted that they see me dressed that way and mentioning MK and think I'm just here to sell something, period.
However, when I dress casual but nice (classy jeans/dress pants and a nice blouse) and act friendly, I was received much better. No one seemed intimidated. It was more like an exchange between friendly acquanitances than salesperson/customer. I mentioned MK and they either said yes or no to a sampling of the products. I went on with the conversation and all was well.
It really helped to take the edge off and when you are relaxed and at ease, it puts others at ease too.
When I dress up in business attire, then it puts me in the mindframe to just sell, and that's also what it says to other people. I feel like walking SPAM or in-person telemarketers. I feel bad, others are uncomfortable... not a good business practice for me.
However, I realize this doesn't apply at a meeting, but the fact that I find business attire like that very uncomfortable does apply. I dress nicely (black jeans/dress pants with a black blouse to match the rest of the room) and leave it at that. My director knows me and is fine with that. Besides, I get far more commentary and questions on my body piercings than my attire. :)
So my opinion is that we should wear what we each feel is nice but comfortable and focus on being friendly and personable, not making a sale. The sale will happen if the person likes the product, regardless of what we wear. Personally, I'm selling a product not myself or an image. Plus, I thought MK was first and foremost about starting real frienships and connecting with others?
A corporate image is important. It speaks of attitude. The attitude I have about my business is professional. I choose to tailor my outfits to my client's comfort level while maintaining that professional attitude.
Laura C
Hi, my name is Erin. i am a trained saleswomen who has worked for a very large company called time warner. you may have heard of it. on occassion i was known to have brought home well over 2g per week, in commission. case and point, i may know a thing or two about sales. i recently gave all of that up to stay home with my beautiful new daughter. i thought i would give mk a try. since afterall, it is about the sales with the whole company....regardless of whatever other "feelgood fluff" they may add. my entertainment came when i was reprimanded...and i mean spoken to in a very rude manner in front of other women there, about wearing dress pants and a blazer. now mind you, i will add, i was not told in advance about any sort of dress code, and i had recently had a baby, so my old clothes were not fitting quite how i would have liked. so i went out and purchased the outfit..just to bring professionalism to the game from my corner of the court. this is where the entertaining part comes in. the meeting was in the directors basement in a room her husband drywalled for her and painted pink. and then she charges two dollars at the door....(which i later found out from corporate, that this was something she should not be doing). so,dont get me wrong, there is something to be said for dressing for success. but for someone who had never been in the workforce, as i have found many mk reps have not, she really should have kept that negativity to herself. seeing is, i was/am a very lucrative salesman who used to make more than enough money wearing work boot, jeans, and a tshirt to work each day. and to insult women who are homeless. because no matter how you want to go back and re-state your bad choice of opinions from your first posting wendy. you cant change the fact that you stereotyped those less fortunate than others. which is an insult. because i am quite sure you call yourself a christian( as with most mk reps) and that isnt very christian...is it?
case and point......dont judge a book by its cover and if you think about getting into the mk rutt consider the fact that if you live under a rock, this may be a very good organization for you. and if you dont you may not want to associate yourself with a mass of women who apparently have a low enough self image that they believe putting on lots of makeup, raising the pitch of their voices(you know that fake happy crap), and wearing rhinstone covered dress suits...makes them a better and more successful business person, or a better person overall for that matter.
sounds like bunny and laura have the right idea...sorry wendy...best wishes for a more pink world for you.
erin
I find the no pants rule very outdated. I work full-time and wear mostly suits to work - but pantsuits, because they are more comfortable to me. I enjoy dressing up, but not every day, and not even once a week. (Dressing up being a dress or skirt). I wear them on occasion when the mood strikes me. I disagree that a women looks more professional in a skirt. There are as many degrees of dresses and skirts as there are pants. The mandate - if MK feels it needs one - should be style of dress, not type of dress. Like every other business organization defines without confusion: professonial, business casual, and casual. For the past ten years, these terms have been around. People understand them. I could describe to you what each category is, but I want to try to keep this brief. What I will say, is that professional dress does include pantsuits/tailored suits. If you want to get a glimpse of business casual, go to any online women's clothing website. Many of them have a category called business casual. Still very appropriate attire for selling, for good impression, etc. The sweater sets, corduroys, etc. look very nice, but border on casual depending on what you are looking at. Under MK's standards, as long as your bottom half doesn't have a crotch, wear whatever you want on top. Wear a snowflake & snowman sweater with a turtleneck; if you've got a skirt, we're okay with that. I love a festive outfit, but I don't consider it professional. It's good to read everyone's comments on this topic. I don't find the no pants rule at Mary Kay to be a positive.
Sarah M - 12 Jan 2005
- 06 Jul 2005
| Topic MaryKayOpinion110 . { Edit | Ref-By | Attach | Diffs | r1.19 | > | r1.18 | > | r1.17 | > | r1.16 | >... } |
|
Revision r1.19 - 14 Jan 2005 - 05:05 by EliMantel
Privacy Policy |
Copyright © 2000-2005 by the contributing authors.
All material on this collaboration tool is the property of the contributing authors. Collect email addresses here. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback. |