Bunny,

I've met very few who have issues with Mary Kay's way of business and those that do usually have failed at their attempt to make Mary Kay work for them. Obviously it seems to work for MANY women, so those that have a problem with it should move on and work towards what they would consider perfection or a suitable marketing plan.

Also, to those who want a statement from Mary Kay stating that MK isn't a MLM Company: call legal and they would be glad to issue a statement from one of their attorneys. It's not rocket science folks!

RebekahStellar  - 05 Feb 2004

Hi Rebekah,

Sorry, I think I misspelled your name in my last reply ... Rebekah, I hear from carloads of people who "have issues" with Mary Kay's selling structure, and some of them would like to see it made better (because they really like the company and products), rather than simply "moving themselves along," and I think that these people not only have a right to be heard, they may, in the end, actually turn out to be the company's best friends: It's always better to change before it's forced on you.

I don't want to get into the Woolf suit here, as I've yet to read about it in any detail, but I can make some general statements about corporate legal departments, since I used to run one: always remember that corporate attorneys are, for their corporate clients, the same partisan counselors and advocates that all civil and criminal attorneys are for their clients; that is to say, call any corporate legal department you care to and inquire as to whether or not that company is performing all of its business in full compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, and you will ALWAYS be told yes. That doesn't mean that the affirmative response may be relied upon, however, to be true as the layman understands truth. It tends to mean something like, well we haven't been sanctioned as yet for anything we're doing; or, we've been sanctioned and fined and are taking "appropriate" measures (which may take years to implement - always in a good faith effort, of course, of which we can make an adequate showing before the court or administrator); or (hate to admit it, but it's public record) yes, we did get an adverse jury decision, or ruling in the lower court, BUT we're confident that will be overturned on appeal ("blah, blah ... the case was entirely without merit, blah, blah ...); or something else equally shading the truth - sometimes shading it into complete obscurity, lol. I don't mean to suggest that these attorneys are are doing something wrong: for the most part, they are not, they are doing their job, and their department is doing its job; and every corporate legal department will do its best to help the public relations department be as truthful as necessary but not a whit more than necessary, when it comes to maintaining the company image and reputation.

So calling MK corporate legal to ascertain whether or not MK's selling structure is skating on the thin edge of ethical dealing and/or regulatory compliance - or has actually fallen off entirely - is like asking, by phone, the best friend of the kid with his hand in the cookie jar if anyone's hand is, in fact, in the jar, and if that hand has cookies in it that the owner of the hand intends to surreptitiously and without permission remove and appropriate for his own use: I'm sure you can think of as many creative ways as I can for the best friend to deny reality without outright lying to you, lol.

Bunny Watson - 05 Feb 2004

Topic MaryKayOpinion93 . { Edit | Ref-By | Attach | Diffs | r1.3 | > | r1.2 | > | r1.1 }

You must register before editing pages or using other extended features on this TWiki system.

Revision r1.3 - 07 Feb 2004 - 17:09 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.