RebekahStellar
- 12 Feb 2004
I believe it was you who said "Here, here" to Laura's following request "I want SOMEONE, ANYONE and EVERYONE who has posted how wonderful this business is to not only tell us their emotions about the loyalty they have to 'the company', I want cold hard profit facts......." Then you state that you, and others, are taken aback by a request for "financial data (w/out personal identifiers)" I may not be a rocket scientist, however, I think it's pretty clear that it would be impossible for Wendy, or others on this board, to post thir earnings without everyone knowing it's from them. Hence, personal identifiers. Not to mention; I'm certain that most do not know the financial matters of other MK women so it would be imposible for them to post so and so's information to appease Laura, you and other's interested.
If you want information on financial data (w/out personal identifiers) you might do better to contact MK Corporate. But, I think it's fair to say that this business doesn't run like the business that post exact figures on income. That will most definately have to come from the women themselves. But I could be wrong.
RebekahStellar - 12 Feb 2004
Hi Rebekah,
I did say "Hear, Hear" to the general proposition that anyone who makes claims for the potential profitability of any business/business opportunity ought to provide, not just enthusiastic emotional endorsement, but data showing demonstrated profitability, to back up those claims. I further said, and say, "Hear, Hear" to the application of that proposition in the case of MK. I did not say I was taken aback by a request for "financial information (w/out personal identifiers)," I said I was taken aback at the strong negative reaction to the general proposition, and its application to MK, stated above; but came to suspect that it was because of the misunderstanding over the personal identifiers.
Anyone who works at management level, or its equivalent, has, or ought to have, the skill and experience to put together such data reports; raw information (gathered "blind" from existing paperwork) can be drawn from a variety of sources: from within one's own sales region, and/or equivalent or similar regions, and/or, not least, as you suggest, from the company's own archived data. And the corporation, if it has not already done so (which is doubtful), can certainly put together such data, as the necessary numbers can be extrapolated from just the paperwork that I know about - and I'm new, and unfamiliar with the documenatation at the Director level. (And, if the overall numbers supported the claims, I, for one, would think that the company would jump to publish: well, they don't jump and they don't publish. Draw your own conclusions.)
The request for and perusal of such financial reports (as are here under discussion), before taking up (or not) a business opportunity, is both common practice and not necessarily indicative of any suspicion of, negativity, or hostility toward the offering company and/or its representatives: it's just good research on the part of the potential investor/business owner.
I would not, and did not, ask anyone to upload or post identifiable personal financial information; if Laura specifically made such a request (I'll go back and reread the post), I missed that myself, and I thank you for calling it to my attention (if it is there), so that I might clarify my position.
I am not here seeking to be "appeased" (and I hardly think Laura is, either); this isn't a war and we're not enemies.
As I said in another opinion thread:
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
| Topic MaryKayOpinion118 . { Edit | Ref-By | Attach | Diffs | r1.2 | > | r1.1 } |
|
Revision r1.2 - 13 Feb 2004 - 14:01 by BunnyWatson
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. |