Jump to content

Talk:Mary Kay/Archive 1

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

When posting here in the Talk section please add four tildes ~~~~ to the end of your post so it is dated and easier to differentiate from other posts. --WikiWikiP 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rules - Have you read them?

Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset is a good place to start.

Or for more details..
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:No original research
Wikipedia:Reliable sources

From Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources..
Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.

Function of the Talk Page

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.

Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines
Wikipedia:Talk Page

Focus on discussing the article, not the subject, nor authors, nor their websites on this page. 07:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that several of my comments here on the discussion page have been removed. This Mary Kay section, article and discussion page, is totally out of control. Trying to provide factual information in a neutral POV manner is a waste of time. Rsue 05:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked through the history page of this Talk Page and discovered that a number of comments have been deleted, or edited by individuals other than the one that posted them. There are three options here. Firstly, ignore any and all discussion on the Talk Page, and simply edit and revert information in the main article; Secondly, provide explanations here, knowing that they will either be distorted, or deleted, the next time one edits the main page; Thirdly, abandon this article, because the pro-MK side, and the anti-MK side will not even agree on the basic facts about Mary Kay Cosmetics.

Amber luxor 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Thirdly, abandon this article, because the pro-MK side, and the anti-MK side will not even agree on the basic facts about Mary Kay Cosmetics." Good point. Basic facts are basic facts whether one is pro or anti Mary Kay. This article is being completely taken over by the anti-Mary Kay side and any attempt at NPOV is hopeless.Rsue 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Has everyone completely forgetten what Wikipedia is???? This is an encyclopedia. It is for a completely factual and neutral entry about the company. These inflammatory terms like "inventory loading" are inappropriate. A section entitled "Criticism of the Company" is absolutely laughable. I don't care which side of the fence you are on, can you at least be a little intelligent about this??? Facts, strictly facts. Not comments about how one thing or another screws over the consultants. Just the facts - what is offered, what it costs, the history of the company, the different levels. Leave it at that. The silly commentary (generally done by the anti-MK side) is completely inappropriate. Give it a rest! BlueAmy 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueAmy (talkcontribs) 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Copying from the Talk History page "2006-12-05T15:45:09 (Talk) (Reverting to last edit by HagermanBot. This constant censorship even in the talk pages should tell people something.)" Who else find it ironical that that edit was a deletion of a comment?  : It also reflects the gulf between the two sides. Maybe abandonment is best.

Amber luxor 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am really annoyed that my comments are changed to reflect views other than those I wrote.

Amber luxor 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Amber luxor 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

HOW-TO Cite Your Source or Add References/Footnotes at End of Article

If you have a new entry in the article that does not currently have a reference, at the end of the entry (end of line, sentence, paragraph) you add something like the following:

<ref name="corppresskit">[http://www.marykay.com/Company/images/2006CorporatePressKit.pdf Mary Kay Corporate Press Kit 2006]</ref>

AND then later in the article if you have to reference this same item/document at the end of the entry (end of line, sentence, paragraph) you simply add:

<ref name="corppresskit"/>

This will create one footnote entry for the source of reference and add numbers to it to link to each time it is referenced in the article. More details can be found at WP:FN. --WikiWikiP 19:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Sections / Reverting the Article

Amber luxor wrote this on: 22:17, 1 January 2007 Amber luxor (Talk | contribs) "(Revewrted to a vfersion tanht the Kay bots hate, becuase it reprewents a more accur4ate picture of Mary Kay Inc)"

Could we please pay attention to what is being done here on this article? Let's refrain from name-calling. Yes, "Kay bots" is name-calling. Amber luxor does not necessarily write the most NPOV. The statement above clearly shows a bias against Mary Kay Cosmetics.

I have deleted a couple of specific portions because there is no verifiable source for those statements. I have also edited a couple of words here and there to reflect a greater degree of accuracy and NPOV. The history on the article will show the specifics.

Is it really necessary to do the whole revert thing when simply editing a couple of words or phrases will reflect accuracy and NPOV? Enough already. Rsue 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In "The Sales Force" section I added the words "gross" and "potentially" for the simple reason that they do portray greater accuracy and NPOV. Using the phrase "gross profits" makes it clear to the reader that this is the profit before all expenses are paid. Using the word "potentially" regarding being paid commissions reflects greater accuracy because there can be circumstances under which the "recruiter" may not receive any commissions. Constantly doing article reverts, going back and forth, with and without these two words is not necessary.

I want to also point out that there is no discussion here on the talk page as to the reasoning for these constant reverts. Rsue 07:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION PLEASE: To those engaged in the edit war: Under the earnings section, Canadian earnings specifically, someone snuck into this phrase "you suck", " Close to 50% you suck of more than $100 Canadian Currency;". I have edited out the "you suck" and put back in "earned commissions". Please, when you all do your next edit/undo/edit/undo/revert/un-revert/etc., please make sure "you suck" stays gone. Thank you. Rsue 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Before deleting a section in the main article, discuss it here. Likewise discuss a reversion of the entire article here.

I will delete the section PinkTruth on sight. Every version of it has been POV. It looks like it is being added purely to get around the current consensus that this article is to have no external links that are not references for information cited in this article. Amber luxor 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If way2happy continues editing the article to include the pinktruth site there are other ways to deal with it on wikipedia if you are interested, read the help section. If they do it more than a few times in a given period of time there are consequences. Look into the Help section of Wikipedia, it may be difficult to find but its there. There are also templates you can use to officially warn users, I'm not completely familiar with them but if this continues, I may have to become familiar. Now you also have to deal with and x.x.x.234 reverting back to the previous version of this article. While I agree that this current version needs work, not sure that it should be completely reverted. --WikiWikiP 05:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The version that the anonymous person is reverting to is far better than the current one. I agree that we should revert to that version, and then start adding these things. The current article has so many ridiculous and irrelevant sections (as noted below) that it is horrible. So let's revert and then add things back slowly. This guy who has put all this crap up and now insists that we can't delete or change is being ridiculous. BlueAmy 07:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Which sections are irrelevant, and why are they irrelevant?
  • Company History is redundant, since the tables "Markets Mary Kay is In", and "Mary Kay Sales Figures" contains the same data;
  • The section "Products" needs to be fleshed out;
    • As far as the Date Codes go, I purchased a product with a date code of 2C20 earlier this year. Keep it in, as a "public service";
  • The entire section "The Sales Force" needs to be copy edited;
  • The "Rewards" section is missing information about the Mink Coat. PETA originally protested the Mink Coats that Mary Kay Ash gave out --- not the animal testing;
  • There are some issues that "Criticism of the Company" does not list. See the section "Controversy Section Discussion" on this page for more details;
  • The section "Cultural Influence" is iffy. At least two images of Mary Kay have found their way into popular culture. The "Pink Cadillac" was immortalized in a popular song;
  • There is information in this article that Mary Kay (Corporate) will probably want πeople not know about. "The Ninety Day Clause" being an obvious example.

Amber luxor 18:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last reasonable version of the article. Let's start from here and add things one by one. This rewrite done by Jonathon Blake (mostly under anon IPs, but also under logins jonathon and amberluxor) is terrible and we need to make this article RELEVANT. Lots of irrelevant stuff has been put in during the zillion rewrites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the entire article. Discuss and edit sections.

Amber luxor 06:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BlueAmy (her comment on 07:36, 5 November 2006). I also agree with Amber luxor on "Company History is redundant, since the tables "Markets Mary Kay is In", and "Mary Kay Sales Figures" contains the same data;". However, I don't agree with keeping in the date code information. Consumers can find out about date codes, age of a product, by asking the consultant or Mary Kay, Inc.

Amber luxor, from where/whom did you purchase this product with the date code of "2C20"? That product is 14 years old! My recomendation is that you return that product to the consultant from whom you purchased it. Rsue 16:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the Date Code section can be formatted differently so it doesn't take up so much space. Formatted more horizontal than the way it currently is, vertical. --WikiWikiP 19:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I converted the date code into a table. [For RSue, I took care of that stale product a couple of months ago.]

Amber luxor 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The section in the article on the "Turnover Rate" should be edited. The 85% turnover rate based on the Canadian Earnings Representation is inaccurate. The number of consultants who were in for more than one year and did not receive a commission is not available, therefore, a turnover rate cannot be extrapolated. Also, the purpose of this Canadian Earnings Representation is about commission earnings, not sales force turnover. Too much necessary data is lacking to determine a turnover rate. Rsue 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Inventory Loading" section should be deleted, or severely edited. Use of the word "Loading", and the term "Front loading" and it's explanation are POV, not neutral at all. At the end of this section, someone added at paragraph which is accurate. Rsue 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Both "Inventory Loading" and "Front Loading" are standard jargon within the MLM Industry. The issue --- both within Mary Kay, and other MLMs --- is how inventory can be reasonably sold within a reasonable period of time. Go back up that "Wholesale Volume Consultant Figure" and for the US in 2005, it is $1,818.

Can a business case be made that the average consultant will sell more than $1800 of product in a year? That is sapphire level.

Amber luxor 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

$1800 in a year is not sapphire level. These levels are Star Consultant levels, i.e. single order or cumulative quarterly orders, not annual orders.

This article is supposed to be a NPOV article about Mary Kay Cosmetics specifically. "Front loading" and "Inventory loading" are more accurately jargon that is common among the anti-MLM people and anti-Mary Kay people. These phrases are very much POV and not at all neutral. "Issues" should be in the controversary section, not the main article.

A simple title of "Inventory", one single word, is neutral, neither for nor against. Rsue 16:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a place to debate the legalities of Mary Kay or opinions about sales and recruiting tactics. As such, this article shall be kept unbiased and factual. BlueAmy 02:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hold on a minute. Removing terms from an article because you disagree with the people that use them is POV. Don't do that. Leave the terms and explain why they are used by critics. That's the right way. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be NPOV. Neutral; taking neither side; not for or against; neither pro or con. Neutral. Wikipedia is also not the propanda tool for websites.

Is there nothing Wikipedia can do, even here in the discussion area, to prevent such postings as done by and Perhaps the mention of those two web sites is merely a ploy for site advertisement. Wikipedia, is there anyway to put a stop to this nonesense? Rsue 21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For BlueAmy and RSuse. One of the controversies with Mary Kay, is whether or not it operates within the confines of US Federal Law. One issue that hasn't been mentioned in the talk page, or the main page, is whether or not the contracts with Mary Kay are legally binding, or not --- which is the core issue in Blackmon-Dunda v Mary Kay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
While the section needs work to remove excessive quoting and WP:OR -- hell, the whole article needs work -- exclusion is not a way to improve the article. Fox News is arguably a suitable media source under policy. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with what the source said. It matters that the material and source are notable. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

General Article Discussion

This is possibly the worst Wikipedia entry I have ever read. There are way too many stats that just repeat themselves, spelling errors and non-neutral language, as well as too many cliches. Shame on whoever wrote it! Sarah Wepman Sarah Wepman 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a major rewrite done by an anonymous user over the past few days. The previous version of the article is here.. Revision as of 03:43, 11 October 2006 by I haven't taken the time to read the new version to give an opinion. --WikiWikiP 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the rewrite is absolutely horrible. What is this guy doing? He is posting a zillion revisions to his own horrible rewrite. Lets revert to the original article and make SMALL revisions as necessary, and lets make sure that kid backs off. 02:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it all really crap? I mean besides the spelling and grammar, isn't there quite a bit of new and good content? Spelling and grammar can be corrected if thats the only issue. The Notes/References at the bottom are all messed up too. 04:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is information missing in a few areas that would make the entry more factual. Right now it looks like someone copied recruiting flyers from a consultant and put that in with some of the information that is given in the company's brochures used for recruiting. mosbj1

One of the founding principles of Wikipedia was Be Bold in Editing. Obviously somebody was very bold in their editing here. Correct the misspellings, and the grammar. Look at what needs to be edited, and at what is missing:
  • The "unknown" tags in the Mary Kay Sales Figure Table need to be filled in;
  • The income figure for 2003, and 2004 need to be corrected. The 2003 cite says "nearly 1.8 billion dollars. The 2004 cite says "just over 1.8 billion dollars. This obviously contradicts the statement "Other than the period from 1979 thru 1985, the company has reported double digit growth every year" found in the second paragraph of Company History;
  • Directors and court cases for the section The 90 Day Clause;
  • An online link to the following documents:
    • The Beauty Consultant Contract;
    • The Director's Contract;
    • The Mary Kay Corporate Press Kit 2004;
    • The Mary Kay Corporate Press Kit 2005;
    • Mary Kay (Canada) Reported Earnings for 2004;
    • Brochure: Your Future in Mary Kay;
    • Brochure: Mary Kay Career Car Plan Guidelines: February 2005;
    • Brochure: Mary Kay Career Car Insurance Program: August 2005;

jonathon 00:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole rewrite that Jonathon Blake started is absolutely horrible. It was terrible the minute he started with wiping everything out and adding his own crazy numbers and irrelevant information. Can't we please just revert all of this nonsense to the original article which was accurate and readable. Uggh.

Who is Jonathon Blake? Where does it show that this person made these edits? The references for this article are way way way out of control, the same referenced material shouldn't be replicated so many times, instead it should be named once and have numerous references to that single entry. Perhaps you should register a username here, your opinion may carry a bit more weight (or not). I'm still overwhelmed by the article, can it all really be nonsense? The previous article was much more readable, but doesn't necessarily mean it was better. I'm the one that did the majority of that previous article, but not sure that I'm ready to revert back to it myself or put much time into merging them. If you feel strongly enough about reverting back to it, go for it, but be prepared for some backlash. Again, register a username here at wikipedia (although the person that did this major rewrite was IP only and no username). Perhaps the person responsible for this latest major rewrite should register a username here too so its easier carry on a discussion. After all you did to the article, please do, why not? --WikiWikiP 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The "crazy numbers" relate to the size of Mary Kay, in terms of wholesale sales volume, or number of Consultants, Directors, and Nationals. These, in turn, relate directly to the issues of front loading and market saturation; 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The current version of the article contains everything that was in the article before the rewrite that started 9 October 2006 --- with the exception of the external links, which are in the middle of an edit war that started in Auguest; 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This comment under the Age section of the article should be deleted. "That said, there are some individuals who claimed to have been under the age of eighteen, when they signed up as Mary Kay Consultants." There is no verifiable source for this statement. Rsue 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Section Discussion

In the general discussion section above it was mentioned that it might not be a bad idea to add separate section to this article titled "Controversy". A good example of this is in the Amway article. And as I mentioned above, it is well written and even though it is Controversy, it remains written in as NPOV (neutral point of view) as is possible, and it refrains from getting emotional and personal. Those of you that are leaning more towards the anti-MK side if you are interested in doing the same for the MK article, please keep this in mind. Also consider registering at Wikipedia to take responsibility for your posts and to make it easier to recognize who is involved in the discussions here (four tildes will sign your post with your login name). --WikiWikiP 18:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What is controversial depends quite literally upon whether or not you are in the Pink Fog. Maybe examples would help.

  • The Debt Load: This is such a significant problem, that Mary Kay Director Training has at least two sessions deovted to handling the Debt load that is incurred on the path to becoming a director. At least one husband of a National has commented that the path to his wife becoming a National nearly led them into bankruptcy. Those in the Pink Fog claim that the debt is voluntarilly incurred, and that it is the fault of the consultant to purcahse more than she can sell. Those outside of the Pink Fog point out the constant, insistent pressure on teh consultant to prucahse product, regardless of whether or nto there is a legitiamte business need to do so.
  • Front Loading: Directors claim that one needs a "full store" of at least US$4,800 in product, to open your business. The average consultant sells less than US$1,400 of product each year. Those in the Pink Fog claim that the new Consultant did not have a gun at her head, and so the purcahse is not "front loading". Those outside of the Pink Fog say that the new Consultant relied on the advice of the "Expert", not realizing that said Expert would earn between 4% and 26% in commission. And that the sole driving force for the large purchase is the commission that the recruiter/director gets. Before claiming that the maximum commission is 13%, study the Mary Kay commission structure documentation very carefully. In some instances it can be that much.
  • Mary Kay Ordering Days:
    • The largest ordering day is the last day of the Mary Kay Seminar Year. This is 30 June. WHERE IS THE PROOF?
    • The third largest ordering day in the Mary Kay Seminar year is 16 September. This is the first day of the Mary Kay Christmas season. WHERE IS THE PROOF?

Orders recieved by Mary Kay Corporate on those days is at least four times that received on "normal" days. Orders for the week after those days is substantially below "normal". To those in the Pink Fog, that data means nothing. To those outside of the Pink Fog, it indicates that that the sales are driven by non-economic, non-business related reasons.

  • DIQ: the number of consultants who make it to Direcotr is fairly samll --- roughly 2% of all consultants get to be Directors. there are numerous anecodotal tales of "angels" who 'magically" appeared so the individaul could become a direcotr, and/or make production for the month.
  • Market Saturation: How many Mary Kay consultants can a given area support? Those in the Pink Fog claim it is irrelevent. Those outside of the Pink Fog point out that retail sales are made in person, or through personal contact, not over the Internet.
  • Retail Marketing: Both the standard Mary Kay Beauty Consultant contract, and Mary Kay Director's agreement prohibit most forms of retail marketing. Those in the Pink Fog claim that that enables everybody to compete on a level playing field. Those outside of the Pink Fog point out that not only is the playing not level to begin with, but the restrictions prevent them from growing their business thru effective marketing.
  • Credit Card Fraud is rampant within the organization. Directors have gone to jail for this. Those in the Pink Fog claims that that is an aberattion and not typical. WHO? PROOF PLEASE.
  • Identity Theft is common. Consultants and directors have gone to jail for this. Those in the Pink Fog claim that those practices are abberations. WHO? PROOF PLEASE.

In both of those instances ask the individual what "Angels" are. It is MaryKaySpeak for "I commited credit card fraud/identity theft" to advance. SAYS WHO?

  • It is recruiting driven, not sales driven. Those in the Pink Fog claim otherwise. Evidence in support of this proposition includes, but is not limited:
  • FTC Rules ignored. Current FTC rules require taht at least 50% of the product purchased by an MLM *distributor be sold to bona fide third party retail customers. "The Amway Safe Harbour Rule" requires that at least 70% of the product be sold to at least 20 different bona fide third party retail customers. There is no evidence that indicates that mary Kay Corproate, or the individaul Mary kay Consultants could demosntrate that they adhere to either the FTC Rule, or the Amway Safe Harbour Defence.
    • "Do it fast is easy, do it slow is never". This slogan/maxim refers to becoming a National. A status that can be achieved without having sold any Mary Kay products to bona fide third pparty retail customers. THERE IS NO SUCH "SLOGAN"
    • "How to be a National in 1000 Days". This is the title of a document distributed to consultants in the downline of one National. It focuses entirely upon how to recruit people who come in with $3,600 orders --- when the document was origianlly written, that was the highest order amount to come in with --- and to get them to recruit more people to come in with those order. Retail sales is totally ignored in that document. All make up parties, and demosntrations are for the purpose of pitching the business opportunity, not buying the product.
    • The lack of recognition given to the people in "The Court of Sales". 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Court of Sales and the Court of Sharing have the same recognition at Seminar. Actually, the sales court is divided into two courts, one for consultants and one for directors. The Court of Sharing is just one court, consultants and directors combined. In comparing the two, it looks like there is twice as much recognition for the Courts of Sales, as the recognition for the Court of Sharing. Rsue 03:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Rsue, don't delete comments other people make in the talk section. Also sign your name when you do add something in the talk section.

The question: "How many times in the last twenty years has Daphne Lewis been a featured speaker at Seminar?" is legitimate, in a discussion on whether or not Mary Kay emphasizes recruiting over, or at the expense of retail sales. The fact that she has only spoken once at seminar, despite being the perpetual Queen of Court of Sales does have implications here.

Likewise the question "Why is Ms Lewis the perpetual Queen of Court of Sales?" is relevant both because of the low population density of where she lives, and her (MS Lewis's) stated desire to not keep that title, in terms of whether or not Mary Kay emphasizes recruiting over retail sales. 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To:; "The fact that she has only spoken once at seminar...". and "...her (MS Lewis's) stated desire to not keep that title" Your verifiable source is what? Rsue 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

a) Ms Lewis has expressed that desire to no longer be Queen of Court of Sales in several of her training sessions on retailing MK Products.

b) I would strongly urge you to spend several hours reading what, where, and when the wikipedia guidelines apply. 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read the Wikipedia Guidelines. I still want to know your source for your information regarding Ms. Lewis; both of the statements from above; and now this statement as well, "a) Ms Lewis has expressed that desire to no longer be Queen of Court of Sales in several of her training sessions on retailing MK Products." Where exactly are you getting this information?

I would also like to know the exact FTC rules that you claim Mary Kay, Inc. is ignoring.

(Please note that I log in and actually sign with my user name, thereby taking clear responsibilty for what I write here, instead of simply using the ever-changing IP addy.) Rsue 17:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To repeat myself, all three statements attrbiuted to Ms Lewis were said at her training sessions. DATE? TIME? WHO WAS IN ATTENDANCE? PROOF? The first on

Mary Kay (USA) consistently violates both The Amway Safe Harbour Rule and the FTC 50% rule. If it adhered to either, consultants would have to prove that they had sold at least 50% (or 70%) of their previous wholesale purchase, to at least 10 (20) different bona fide third party retail customers, before they could order more product. Furthermore, all "personal use consultants' would have their agreement termianted, since "personal use" is a clear violation of both of those rules. 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, no sources are given. Have you ( presumably) personally attended any one of these alleged "training sessions"?

As for the FTC violations, exactly which FTC rules, etc., have been violated? Links, sources, specifics? Or are you merely repeating gossip you have read somewhere on the internet?

Give me sources, links, specifics. I want to read with my own eyes, look up with my own keystrokes, use my own critical thinking abilities, this very same information that you are using to make your claims. Rsue 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In Re Kescott (86 F.T.C. 1106) esentially ruled that all MLMs were pyramid shemes. 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 Harbour Defence", and, as such, are case law.

Amber luxor 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly took some doing but I finally found Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. (Re Koscott 86 F.T.C. 1106), once I figured out the spelling error. I actually found it on www.mlmlaw.com. That is also were I was able to read Re Amway 93 F.T.C. 618. It would save a great deal of time if you people would actually provide links. I did not read in either of these where Mary Kay, Inc., is in violation of any FTC rules. I found no FTC "50% Rule" anywhere., you still have not stated your sources for the statements you claim regarding Ms. Lewis. You did say, "To repeat myself, all three statements attrbiuted to Ms Lewis were said at her training sessions. The first on" but it appears your sentence is not completed. What "training sessions"? Rsue 07:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Lewis has spoken at many Seminars, not just one. Ms. Lewis does not conduct "training sessions on retailing MK products", certainly not "several".

There is not just one Seminar. There are five. Thus, there are five Queens of the Consultants' Court of Personal Sales, one at each Seminar. Same for all the Courts. There are actually four Courts at each Seminar, not three.

The Amway 70% is an Amway policy, not an FTC Rule. The Amway 70% policy is that certain distributors must certify they have sold 70% of their products to customers and/or downline before they will receive a particular bonus from the Amway company. It has nothing to do with being able to make more wholesale purchases. Rsue 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this paragraph, "One of the effects of that clause, is that several Mary Kay Consultants who are in the United States National Guard, and were called to serve in Iraq, have had their directorship terminated. Because Mary Kay Beauty Consultants are Independent Contractors, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act does not appear to be applicable." from the "90 Day Clause" section because once again there is no verifiable source. This is merely gossip, probably gleaned from discussion groups and/or blogs. Rsue 07:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (I moved this paragraph because I wrote it in the wrong spot.Rsue 07:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

From the Inventory section, I have deleted the sentence, "One of the criticisms of Mary Kay is that it is a product based pyramid scheme." because product based pyramid schemes are illegal and Mary Kay has not been found by law to be a product based pyramid scheme. Rsue 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: This paragraph, "When placing a product order, Mary Kay makes no attempt to ascertain whether or not prior purchases have been sold to bona fide third party retail customers. This means that the company can not comply with either the Amway Safe Harbor Defense[1], nor the more lenient 50% rule, in any FTC action against them."

I left the first sentence because that is a fact. I deleted the rest of the paragraph because study of the very reference of Webster v. Omnitrition reveals it is not an FTC requirement to utilize the "Amway Safe Harbor Defense" or Amways 70% rule. I saw no mention in this reference to a 50% rule. If there are any statements accusing Mary Kay, Inc., of violating any law, rules, or regulations, the specific law, rule, or regulation, preferably the specific court case against Mary Kay, Inc., should be referenced. Rsue 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In Re Koscott (86 F.T.C. 1106) the ruling was the MLMs were not legal. In Re Amway (93 F.T.C. 618) the court essentailly said that if you follow these guidelines, you are not a pyramid scheme. In Webster v. Omnitrition, 79F.3d 776, 782, 784 (9th Cir, 1996) the court ruled that having a set of rules is not enough. The rules must also be enforced. Since then, the FTC has braodened its defintion of what is unacceptable. One point that they have made very clear is that adherence to "The Amway Safe Harbour Rules" does not suffice. Since 1996, their strategy has been more along the lines of filing the take down order, then going to court. 03:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have once again deleted this paragraph, discussed 2 Jan 2007 by me. It was added back in with no discussion.

I have deleted the paragraph citing and referencing the Pryamid Scheme Alert web site. I checked out this reference and it is just a paragraph explaining the link to The Pinking Shears web site. The PSA site has nothing beyond that one paragraph on Mary Kay Cosmetics. I do not feel it is an appropriate verifiable source according to Wikipedia rules. Rsue 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The external links section of this article was out of control. Numerous times a day people will remove and add to the external links with the same handful of sites. It is too simple to do this. Since 99.9% of this was in regards to the anti-mk point of view and related sites, this can now be covered in the newly added Controvery section of the article. So instead of a simple adding or deleting of an external link, if you are interested in this article, please contribute to the Controversy Discussion on this page and agree on what should or should not be included in the Controversy section of the article. But there is no need for external links in this article. --WikiWikiP 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that either the "Criticism of the Company" section of the main article, or the "Controvery Discussion" section on this page currently adequately cover/address the MK Speccific issues. The advantage of the external links, is that they do not have to adhere to NPOV. The issues/controversies are POV orientated. This can be exemplified in the statement: "You can not lose money --- you have a 90% buy back guarantee."(Bottom of page 4 of the New Consultant Package). Is this acceptable hyperbole, or intentional deception,or a factual statment? 21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree those sections may not completely cover all aspects of Controversy and Criticism of the company yet. My suggestion was to discuss these topics on this page to eventually add what is necessary in those sections of the article. Look at the Amway article, last time I looked they did it (Controversy section) very well without getting emotional and staying as NPOV as possible. The external links war had been going back and forth far too long and even brought off topic discussion onto this page. This is not what Wikipedia is about. --WikiWikiP 23:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the new set of external links that was added to the article on 12/03/06 (which I removed a few seconds ago), most of them were blogs which, according to the Wikipedia External Links guideline, should normally be avoided. The others seemed to be the usual pinkingshears and a maybe a newly named upyourcaddy site. Again, if there is content in any of those pages that is worth noting, take some time and figure the proper way to add it to the Controversy section of the article. --WikiWikiP 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The No External Links Allowed is a compromise to end the link war. If the blogs, or Laura's website (either Laura)have appropriate source material that can be linked to within the article, then those links can be made. Do any of those sites have a copy of any of the contracts as a stand alone document? If so, links to those would be appropriate. 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For a couple of points. Wait at least a fortnight for an answer to your questions, before running off to request an advocate. Secondly, nobody is going to pay attention to a request for an advocate from an IP address listing. For this article, posts from IP address only people are very likely to be ignored, because of the deep split between the pro-MK and anti-MK factions.
Addressing your questions.
There was a long discussion that was deleted, rather than archived, about which sites could be linked to, and which could not be linked to. The final compromise was that a section External Links would not be used here. Links to relevant material, within the article to the various websites, and blogs would be acceptable. For example, in a discussion of the enforcement of the Director's Agreement, a link to the copy of petition filed by Ms Blackmon-Dundee in her court case against Mary Kay would be appropriate.
The entire discussion about original research and verifiability has been removed from the Talk page. Those two items make it difficult to write this article in a manner that all sides can accept. The Woolf v Mary Kay lawsuit barely hints at the most common issues reported on all of the anti-MK blogs and websites. Namely, "If I am an independent business owner, why I am a prohibited from doing something?" and "If I am an independent business owner, why am I required to do something?"

Amber luxor 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For, I am aware of least 100 other issues that are controversial, that are not mentioned either in the main article, or on the talk page. Add them to the page in the "Criticism of the Company" section, if they meet the requirements of NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability. I expect to add information from from Blackmon v Mary Kay to the "Criticism of the Company" section.
For BlueAmy, that section can either be called "Criticism of the Company", or "Controversial Issues about the Company". Take your pick. We are talking facts here. Granted, these are not the facts that Darrel Overcash wants to read, but that does not mean that it is illegitimate to include them.

Amber luxor 06:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a Uzbekistan external link in this article? This is an English article and I'm sure there are plenty of other non U.S mary kay sites such as .ca .china .all the other places. --WikiWikiP 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. After looking at the site, I am not sure that it is an official Mary Kay website. Why would a corporate web site include a section that is nothing more than a link farm? Why the use of external link counters? Neither the layout, nor the content resembles that of other official Mary Kay websites. 06:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The No External Links Allowed is/was a compromise. This compromise will be enforced. Both sides lose under this compromise. 07:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

I seek to remove the biased and irrelevant information from the article. That is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyblue (talkcontribs)
AmyBlue you have done eight page reverts in the last twenty four hours. One a day is considered excessive. Three reverts in 24 hour period is grounds for blocking.
You have not provide any objective reason for deleting any of the controversial issues. You have not provided any objective reasons for considering the deleted material to be irrelevent.

Amber luxor 04:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think she's reverting because she doesn't buy into the whole "because Jonathon/Amber said so" theory. Jonathon/Amber - you're the one who wrecked this article to begin with, making 100 or so changes to it within a week. I think it's time for you to back off and let the rational people deal with this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Except what is being reverted is information that is sourced. And the reverts include information that is demonstrably false.

Amber luxor 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why I Stopped Editing This Article

A last note just to clearify. I have removed my commentary and ceased editing the article in main because of 1) constant, repeated vandalism and deletion of information in the "Criticism" section by those who do not want anything negative to be known about this company. I believe this is because they either want the victimizing of innocent women and their families (esp. inventory loading and the subsequent debt in most cases) to continue so that they can profit therefrom or they are simply malicious roaming vandals with nothing better to do with their time, 2) the failure of Wikipedia Admins to stop these proven vandals. What's the point of contributing under these circumstances? The editor of PT simply did not want to be associated with the article in any way as it is and I can fully understand.

My recommendations are that 1) either the "Criticism" section be locked or the criticism section be given its own page to be edited by the anti-MK side but with arguments hashed out by both sides in the Talk section first and 2) that the vandal(s) who have had repeated warnings (see their personal talk pages) be dealt with.

If anyone wants to see what the Criticism section looked like before the current "editing" they can find it here.

If any one wants to see what the Talk page looked like before they can find it here.

If anyone wants to find out the other side of the issue they can visit these sites:

There is another side besides the company line (I know from the personal experience of a family member), that deserves a fair hearing here just as on any other controversial Wikipedia page.

Hopefully this last comment won't itself be vandalized (see Wikipedia:Etiquette last point under "Here are a few things to bear in mind"). Apologies to any I may have personally offended. 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixing this Article

I suggest that since this article is such a mess that we drop all of the arguing on this talk page and start this article over from scratch - do a complete re-write. This article has been sitting here idle with no significant improvements for far too long. - Eric 03:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that starting from scratch will fix this article. Not sure what the solution would be to end it, I think there will always be goings back and forth. Before the current version, I started over and attempted to maintain this revision (last live at 03:43 on 11 October 2006 by with hopes to accomplish the same thing, the previous article wasn't going anywhere excepted constantly being reverted. --WikiWikiP :: It has nothing to do wi 07:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Better but not much on criticism of the company (which is growing) there though. 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Actually on second read still this sounds like an advertisment, but at least it's not as fawning to the company. 19:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the current article, and starting from scratch will not help anything, as this article is one of the battlegrounds between the pro-MK and anti-MK factions. If you look at the material in the talk page that has been deleted, you'll discover that none of the sides agrees on what consistutes "a verifiable fact". Once Blackmon v Mary Kay has gone to trial, more information criticical of the company, from verifiable sources will be available. Amber luxor 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back to the revision suggested by WikiWikiP and stop certain people from editing. Their agenda is clear. Why do we allow this? This article is awful. JessicaZander 01:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiWikiP's version fails to take into account what the pro-MK and anti-MK factions are disputing. Provide specific examples of what and why you think the version is "aweful". Amber luxor 08:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Remember that Wiki is an online ENCYCLOPEDIA. The majority of the "criticism" items are clearly propaganda from the anti-MK people. Much of this stuff does not belong here. Then there are things like the comment about how much inventory someone should buy to start. That's silly and doesn't belong. 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the criticism is coming from the "anti-MK" or former MK people. Do you think the company is going to critisize itself?? Also read [1] & [2] which encourages new recruits to spend up to $5,400 calling this their "Total Success Package" leading people to believe the stuff is going to virtually sell itself. Problem is people are finding the market saturated and as the smartmoney.com site demonstrated motivated people are having trouble unloading the stuff. This isn't propaganda but the facts, and it does belong. 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just read your version through. It reads like an brochure for the company, plus in deleting the quotes on criticism which are from legitimate sources you erase one of the biggest criticisms: that the "opportunity" is not what it's cracked up to be, but that you stand a very good chance of ending up with a financial LOSS rather than the other way around statistically. By only pointing to a few specific cases some may think that those cases are just a few sour grapes. But lots of people are saying that they are losing money. People have the right to know this information. Also the websites are NON-blog. 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Did your realize that the current "Criticism of the Company" section makes numerous references to material that has been deleted from the article? An omission that can be very confusing to people that aren't aware that tan edit war is ongoing. For that reason, I have reverted the entire article. 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me what you're talking about? 02:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is one example: In the section on Inventory there is a referemce "Mary Kay Sales Figures Table above". That table was deleted when WikiWiki's version was put in. In the sentence "This implies that" for $1818 is going to leave the reader lost as to where, or how that $1818 figure was derived. At a minimum, that sales table should go back. Though I understand why the pro-MK faction doesn't like it. Amber luxor 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that if you find relevant information that you should include it in WikiWiki's version which is not as ad sounding as the other. 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I added "Markets MK is in" and the "Mary Kay Sales Figures" tables back, since those are the ones referred to in the section on inventory. 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that it's not been all the advertisment sounding, pro-MK sections of the article that have been under repeated attack. In that regard the "anti-MK" side has been respectful. It's only been the criticism section. There is an issue here of a lack of respect for the other side - those who have a story to tell of their experiences. I think it's obvious that MK people will never allow criticism to remain when they can just keep reverting it. The more this happens the lower my opinion of Mary Kay goes. The article ought to be locked and the arguments hashed out on the talk page. 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If one stops and looks closely at the material that is not part of the "Criticism of the Company", it can be read either as an add for Mary Kay, or a subtle criticism of Mary Kay. Given the nature of the dichotomy, I doubt the effect was intentional. This effect is not in WikiWiki's version, but the version that WikiWiki's replaced. Need I point out that WikiWiki's version is much more US-centric? I could add religious intolerence under criticism of the company, and cite the Chinese cases.Amber luxor 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about adding something about religious intolerence (including something like Mary Kay Ash deification) myself which a lot of people say is almost cultlike. It should be in. 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Even Mary Kay admits that they have a 70% dropout rate (others familiar with similar MLMs suspect that it's much higher). That's a lot of unhappy former MKers. Let them have their voice. 23:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as hashing things out on the talk page, the only thing that had something that resembled a consensus, was that there would not be a section "external links". Amber luxor 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, never agreed to such a thing. Links are a good way to find out additional information. Every other controversial page has them. 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The major reason for the "No External Links" compromise, was because the links were in an edit war of their own. Amber luxor 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then a bit of compromise, let both sides include their favorite links. 01:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The link edit war was between two different factions of the anti-MK crowd. If you let each side add their own favorite links, you will end up with at least ten links to anti-MK sites, and one to a pro-MK site. 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the two different factions but right now I see two links pro-MK (Official Mary Kay site & Yahoo Groups - MK Beelievers this latter which, by the way, appears to be a straight-out blog but I've not seen anyone deleting it) and two con-MK (Fact & Fiction about Mary Kay & The Pinking Shears). I note that it is ONLY the con websites that have been continually reverted. Why not limit the links to these four until either side wants to add another site then if the other agrees they can add another? It's not that difficult. But I don't think one side should be able to unilaterally decide that there will be no external links. External links are a normal and appropriate part of Wikipedia. 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Each faction of the anti-MK crowd deleted the listing of the other anti-MK site. 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me where I deleted any site? If so, I sure don't remember it. 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now there are two pro-MK links. What happens when somebody from one of the motivational organizations withing MK decides that this article needs to be linked to the home page of their motivational organization? Do we really need a section "External Links", when there are forty two links to notes? 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. We need to eliminate the controversy so that the pro-MK sites can link to a glowing online ad-like article and use it as validation of the legitimacy of Mary Kay for newbies. No, I don't think this page should be linked to tons of personal MK pages. Lets leave the pro/anti sites to the few big ones. Of course if someone wants to kill the external links in another way I guess they can start throwing in piles and piles of links hoping to bury the other side and thus hide them. It's quite obvious to me that the reason that the pro-MK crowd is so desperate to eliminate the few external link sites is because they don't want any linking to an anti-MK site that might alert new prospective recruits to a different side of the story about Mary Kay. This attitude really sucks. Every other controversial article has external links why should this one be any different? 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with eliminating what is controversial about Mary Kay Cosmetics. 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lock this Page

Do you have to have an adminstrator to lock the article so that newly registered people or people who do not have an account cannot edit the article? I think that would help keep the vandalism down a little bit anyways?
Eric 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that this article be Semi-Protected because of constant vandalistic edit wars between many users. Eric 03:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Please remember that when you are making edits on Wikipedia that this is an encyclopedia not a place for advertising. We really should have more information about the company rather than having 85% of the article be about Criticism and court cases that don't even belong on Wikipedia. Eric 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I count 531 words in the pro-MK section. The "Criticism" section has 554 words (including the initial statement in the "Inventory" section). Pretty close. Note I did not count the "Consultant Turnover Rate", "Woolf v Mary Kay Cosmetics", "The 90 Day Clause", or the "Inventory" sections as criticism since these are more historical/business fact. 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
"Woolf V Mary Kay" gets to the core of one criticism of Mary Kay. "In Re Amway" is the case law on the difference between a pyramid scheme, and an MLM. "Blackmon v Mary Kay" is a current court case involving an individual who was NIQ (National Director in Qualification) prior to being terminated for contractual violations. These cases form the legal foundation of the criticism of Mary Kay. 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly these are not positive issues for MK but they are more of the nature of relatively obscure historical business events that have no real impact on the average consultant. The criticism in the Criticism section is broader applies to everyone. It is legitimate information that the new recruit especially should know (and be allowed to know) before plunking down hundreds or thousands of hard earned dollars on makeup. 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It is too early to say what the exact fall out from "Blackmon v Mary Kay" is. The other two cases provide a framework from which legitimate criticism of the company can be constructed. The material under the heading "Criticism of the Company" that is not under a subheading is more in the way of an "I Story", and as such, does not belong on Wikipedia. There shouldn't be more than 20 words to introduce "Criticism of the Company". 20:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just flat out disagree with you here for the reasons already stated above. It belongs. And where did you get that 20 words thing? I count 32, so what? 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pink Truth Blog contains memos that purportedly are from Mary Kay Corporate that demonstrate their concern about the criticism of MK on the anti-MK blogs. These issues affect both the short term, and long term viability of MK. 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So what are you saying here? We should hide the truth to protect Mary Kay Corporation? 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Pink Truth blog is on the page is it? 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The Pink Truth Blog is one of the sites listed in the notes section. 20:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Had to search for that one. Surely you're not objecting to one link in, what is it, 43 (#35) that links to an article (and thus indirectly to the PT website) that appeared in Pink Truth covering MK's response to the FTC?? Come on now, would you people lighten up already!

Is the information from Pink Truth blog verifiable? Is it accurate? Is it disinformation? Compare the PDFs from Pink Truth Blog with those from InTouch. 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation, perhaps?

A long time ago (June 2006) WikiWikiP asked for mediation because there was edit warring of anti-MK and pro-MK anons. The problem was neither one of those anons was interested in resolving the dispute in a civil manner.

Now, as I've been watching this page ever since, I see the problem is still here, but at least there is some discussion of both sides... If you're interested in a compromise, maybe I could restart the case? fetofs Hello! 13:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think mediation could help. A good start to this would be for some of the frequent anon ip's posting here to register a username to make mediation a bit easier to follow. Regarding the recent edit wars happening here, I really haven't been involved too much since the last rewrite, so those that have been involved would have to also agree on the restart of mediation. --WikiWikiP 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with it so long as it's fair. For the record I don't believe I've ever deleted any pro-MK information, though I've discussed it's objectivity on the Talk page (I may have to eat my words). I've spent all of my time just trying to get the side of those who feel they were deceived included. Note: since we may be agreeing to mediation and to rules that would apply in the future I'd like to say now that when and if a book or whatever is ever produced by the opposing side (I don't know if so but there usually are in these cases eventually aren't there?) anyway when and if I would hope that information from it could be presented here. 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, about the username thing, I like to use an IP. Hopefully I can follow on the Talk page. 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't use a username, because I seldom can remember my password. 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've probably added as much to the pro-MK side as I have to the anti-MK side. And done more reverts than I care to remember, so the anti-MK info is retained in the article. The big question is whether or not AmyBlue and RSue will pay any attention to mediation. 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just count how many times they have bothered to discuss and I think it's probable they won't, 67.136.137.xxx. So, it seems we'll have to agree on something all of you seem reasonable on the criticism section and revert any vandalism that occurs. What exactly don't you all like about the criticism section? fetofs Hello! 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The last I heard RSue And AmyBlue were being blocked for repeated vandalism. Is this still the case? Since they seem to be the two main pro-MKers (besides those other IP #s who were proven vandals, not just to the Mary Kay page but to lots of other wiki pages as well - see [3]) are they not supposed to agree to mediation also for it to work? According to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes under "Mediation", "When requesting formal mediation, be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute using the steps listed above, and that all parties to the dispute are in agreement to mediate. Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part". The next step if they aren't blocked and we don't hear from them would seem to be arbitration. 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
BlueAmy is a vandal, or at least it was judged as such by the sysadmins. I'm afraid the ArbCom is just used for serious cases, not for vandals. Just now I've realized Rsue at least seems to have some interest in discussion, so I'll see what I can do. There has to be at least someone with a different POV, if we decide we should have mediation (I had thought one of you defended the other side). fetofs Hello! 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that BlueAmy had been judged a vandal by the sysadmins. 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues with the section "Criticism of the Company"

This might duplicate the section above "Cotroversy Section Discussion". 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Each subsection of the "Criticism of the Company" should provide a synopsis of the issue, and why it is controversial. 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Using the "Inventory" section as an example. The first paragraph states what is controversial here. "Product based pyramid scheme" and "front loading". The section paragraph states the options that consultants are presented with. The third paragraph applies a theoretical figure to determine what "a reasonable amount" of inventory to purchase would be. The fourth paragraph addresses the pyramid scheme issue. The final paragraph covers what happens when a consultant returns inventory. 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For each issue that is controversial, that format should be followed. Quoting an earlier statement on the page "What is controversial depends quite literally upon whether or not you are in the Pink Fog." If you visit any of the anti-MK sites, you can find a hundred and one things that are done by MK corporate, or recruiters, and directors in MK. Which issues that are "controversial" should be covered in this section? 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Those things that most normal people would find objectionable I would think. For example the use of religion as a means to get women to accept what they are told without questioning because "these godly people wouldn't lie to me would they?" The answer is yes they would. And if they are using religion be doubly aware [4] (first paragraph) [5]. Christianity is used the same way in Thomas Kinkade galleries and it is controversial there as well [6] [7]. The way they disrespect other faiths and the virtual Mary Kay worship I've also read complaints about. Anything that may touch upon the average potential recruit negatively should be included. The "positive" is already represented in the article. 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You can handle the religion criticism. There are a couple of cites to the termination of consultants in China on religious grounds. Allegedly, there is a court case in either Cooke County Illinois, or in Dallas/Fort Worth about harrasment of Wiccans by Mary Kay. [That is about as much as I know about the case.] One stumbling block is avoiding "Original Research". Christianity is often used as a lure to get people into MLMs. It isn't original with Mary Kay, or thomas Kinkade galleries. (Somewhere in the archives of the MLMSurvivors list is a message about an Altar Call at an Amway event!) 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as "may touch upon the average potential recruit" goes, I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place to explain why Mary Kay (and MLMs) are bad news. Present facts, not opinion. 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok some specifics
  • deception about the chances of success
  • inventory frontloading
  • debt resulting from MK
  • the cultlike demeanor that many Former MKer report
  • marital wreckage from MK that Former MKers also report
  • Is MK a pyramid scheme? (see my comments below)
Obviously significant legal events should be included if just for the encyclopedia sake of it. Additionally I think the stuff from smartmoney.com and "pyramid scheme alert" should remain. Others more experienced than I could add more. 02:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For 21:05, would you list what you see as being controversial? It might be possible to scrap the section "Criticism of the Company", if each issue were covered. 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if your going to have a criticism section I think that a heading "Criticism of the Company" is appropriate certainly. 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For example "Earnings". The MK Recruiting brochures offer an "executive income". From the Mary Kay (Canada) data, it is obvious that the majority of consultants don't even reach a poverty level income from their commissions. Pink Truth Blog has a PDF that purports to provide commission earnings for US Nationals for 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2006. One of the comments has the mean and median figures --- both of which were under US$100,000. One of the anti-MK sites (Pinkingsheers?) has an analysis of retail earnings, based upon Court of Sales data. Nobody earned more than US$100,000 gross from retail sales. 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read that the NSDs are only 1% of the MK sales force. According to Robert FitzPatrick's study (going by similar MLMs), not only do average sales representatives not earn a profit (especially after expences) but 99% suffer big losses [8]. Former consultants say they make below minimum wage [9]. I've read lots of stories of women leaving MK with huge debt loads from all the inventory they were urged to purchase. The main way to make money in a fraudulent multi-level marketing scheme is by recruiting lots of other people under you (which people will lose money themselves), get them to buy some sort of expensive inventory or product and try to get those recruits to recruit others. Thus the base, the vast majority, can't win by design, without major recruiting. That's a pyramid scheme. Thus the vast majority leave. This is the deception by omission that MK leaves out of their sales pitches to new recruits. 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Roughly 500 NDs of 1.6 million BCs world wide. Roughly 0.031% 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
One reason I wanted the earnings section, was to provide solid data about what one can earn in Mary Kay. "Executive Income' sounds great, but the 2005 Canadian data indicated that around 15 out of 32,820 individuals earned over $100,000 Canadian in commission. Or 337 earned more than $17,000 Canadian from commission. Source: http://www.marykay.ca/Display.asp?PageID=1484&LanguageID=1&Directory=Home

How is $17,000 Canadian an "Executive Income"? US$14,411.90 according to http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi today. 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

From the "Earnings" section "There is no reliable data for earnings from retail sales. The quoted figure of US$1,375 per year for the average Consultant was derived by dividing the annual wholesale sales by Mary Kay Corporate, by the number of consultants in Mary Kay. This figure is incorrect, as it does not take into account product returns, eBay, auctions, sales at a discount, and purchases by "personal use consultants" --- all of which would lower this figure" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Kay&oldid=90659925 . 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Recruitment, Market Saturation, and Consultant Turnover are probably critical issues here. (How did "Consultant Turnover Rate" survive the purge when "Earnings" did not? ) Three figures about consultant turnover have been cited. One based upon the submission to the FTC by MK (USA), one based on Mary Kay (Canada) data, and one from Mary Kay (USA) circa 1985. 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The definition of an "illegal pyramid scheme" according to [10] is an "emphasis on recruitment versus sales". Now to get an idea of how important recruiting is to Mary Kay this statement from Mary Kay "With a sales force over 700,000 individuals, a large number of which are new each year, the burden of effectively complying with such requirements would be virtually impossible.... Our experience shows that an Independent Beauty Consultant meets with a minimum of five prospects before recruiting one. Based on a conservative rate of sales force recruiting and turnover, we have 40,000 new Independent Beauty Consultants each month, with a total of 2.4 million disclosure opportunities each year" [11] emphasis mine. Now this significant paragraph from the current article When placing a product order, Mary Kay makes no attempt to ascertain whether or not prior purchases have been sold to bona fide third party retail customers. This means that the company can not comply with either the Amway Safe Harbor Defense[41], nor the more lenient 50% rule, in any FTC action against them. In other words while recruiting is very important consultants actually selling their stuff to non-MK personnel is not. Many former MKers report this emphasis as well. Thus to my understanding they are a pyramid scheme. 07:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Recruiting is the name of the Game. "How to be a National Director in 1,000 Days" makes no bones about it. Nancy Tietjen pioneered the "do it fast" approach. The issue is writing about it that meets all of the Wikipedia criteria. 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where/how "Woolf v Mary Kay" should be covered in the article. It deserves mention on two grounds:

  • It was the first case in which Independent Contractors were awarded rights as employees;
  • It is the case law that the Beauty Consultant is an Independent Contractor;

Perhaps it should be a page of its own, with links from this article, and various articles on employment. 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm not sure how to correctly handle "The Ninty Day Clause". This is merely one of a number of clauses in the Mary Kay Director's Agreement that trip up Directors. This specific clause ( 90 day rule) needs something more substantial than an "I Story". Whilst Wikipedia is not the place to have an analysis of a contract, the Beauty Consultant Agreement and Director's Agreement do have a number of causes which appear to be controversial --- some of them are being argued in Blackmon v Mary Kay. 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Again anything that may touch upon a potential recruit negatively and which they might not be told about up front ought to be included. If it gets to be too long maybe the particular issue can be moved or abbreviated or counterbalanced with a little more positive info on the company. You might find some on their website. Overall though, the sound of an ad in the pro-MK side should be toned down. [User:|]] 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It shouldn't sound like an add for Mary Kay. OTOH, it shouldn't sound like an add for the anti-MK side either. 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

Can somebody archive the talk page? 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Company section

This section is composed mainly of text copied verbatim from an article. I believe we should "cite" the source, and not copy it in its entirety. Someone should summarize what the sections of the article demonstrate (that Mary Kay is a pyramid scheme, MLM, etc.) and use a reference to point to smartmoney. I'm afraid something not copied will become POV, but I'll try to do my best to avoid that. fetofs Hello! 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the source being quoted on The Way Back Machine? If so, have a link to that as an alternative, in case the original dissapears. 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Have at it Fetofs. :-) A few more comments though: If not quoted in its entirety I think it should at least quote the meat of those comments just in case the smartmoney.com issue disappears online as sometimes happens. Also Mary Kay, of course, vigourously denies that they are a pyramid scheme as they maintain that they are selling a bona fide product [12]. Problem is that most of that product is going no farther than the consultants themselves - IOW, the consultants are, by and large, the customers. A lot of that is due to market saturation and too many consultants in a given area [13]. But Mary Kay doesn't try to limit number of consultants or relate these disturbing facts to new recruits when they are urging them to join and buy lots of makeup that will supposedly "literally sell itself" because they hope that these recruits will continue buy product and recruit others (who will also buy and recruit) naively believing that this the path to success - thus the scam. The distinguishing characteristic is whether the money in the scheme comes primarily from the participants themselves (pyramid scheme) or from sales of products or services to customers who aren't participants in the scheme (legitimate MLM).... The people on the bottom level of the pyramid, no matter how shallow or deep it goes will always lose their money. Pyramid scheme. If participants are paid primarily from money received from new recruits, then the company is an illegal pyramid or Ponzi scheme. Multi-level marketing. 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that all these MLMs and pyramid schemes appear to use the same lingo (e.g. "upline", "downline" etc). On the humorous side, Mary Kay has, apparently, inspired the coining of a new word: "flopportunity".

I just added/rewrote the section Earnings. "Flopportunity" doesn't begin to describe the income that one can earn. 86% earned less than $100 Canadian in commission. Even coupled with a theoretical $4,257.93 gross retail income, (MK Wholesale sales in Canada divided by number of consultants in Canada) the financial picture looks bad. 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I gotta tell ya all, I am really sick of this topic. I can't believe that it took this long to get some relief from the vandals. Newbies would likely have given up long before. But now that the issue is finally getting some attention I think I'll back off. Best 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

a) It looks like the vandals are back. [The entire section "Criticism Of The Company" was deleted 15 March 2007.]

b) When I added back the "Criticism of the Company" section, I excluded everything but two lines in the introduction. I think it is more appropriate to discuss specific issues and criticism of the company in separate subsections. [If somebody wants to set up a subsection about recruiting---which is what most of what I deleted covered --- Go ahead.] 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved everything that had been in the intro to "Criticism of the Company" to a new section --- "Mary Kay Qua Pyramid Scheme". As an introduction, it implies that the only criticismof Mary Kay is that it is a pyramid scheme. As a sub-section,both sides can present their point of view without adding bias to the other criticisms of the company. 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mary Kay Vandals Are Back!!!

Yep folks, here we go again! Would someone please, please lock the article already? These scammers are not going to leave it alone otherwise. 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Webster v. Omnitrition, 79F.3d 776, 782, 784 (9th Cir, 1996)