TWiki . Edumacation . MaryKayOpinion131	TWiki . { Main | Edumacation | TWiki | Test }
	Edumacation . { Home | Users | Changes | Search | Go }

MK isn't a MLM. I could care less if you want to consider them to be...they aren't. And please do not give another long winded post as to why you think they are. Some peoople may chose to think that I am a Banana (even after stating that I'm not)...but that doens't make them right.

What I find interesting is that Gloria Mayfield Banks is a graduate of Harvard and has stated that MK had been mentioned there during her years of school. So, it seems that someone doesn't have the story straight.....

Forgive me for not taking your post as gospel truth on this one...I will be investigating for myself.

RebekahStellar  - 17 Feb 2004

Hey Rebekah,

You may have me confused with another poster on this one, I've not previously posted a long (or short) explanation of why, or even whether, I might (or might not) think that MK is an MLM. Here is what Mary Ward had to say under Opinion #92:

"Question for Rebekah

MK is a member of the Direct Selling Association (web site dsa.org). According to information listed on the DSA web site for consumers under questions and answers, MLM is defined as:

Q. What is the difference between single level and multilevel compensation plans?

A. Single level compensation plan means a representative/distributor is compensated based solely on one's own product sales. In a multilevel compensation plan, representatives/distributors are compensated based not only on one's own product sales, but on the product sales of one's downline. Taken directly from http://www.dsa.org/selling/faq.htm#multilevel

According to the above information, MK is a MLM company. Is it not?

MaryWard?? - 09 Feb 2004"

And neither the fact that Gloria Mayfield Banks is a graduate of Harvard, nor the veracity of any statements she has made to the effect that MK "was mentioned" there during her years of matriculation, are here in dispute, at least not by me. That an organization was discussed during business school class time, or was chosen as the subject of a case study, or dissertation, does NOT mean that the organization's marketing plan was/is "taught" at that school.

Additionally, many business leaders are invited to Q & A sessions with business school students, and that fact, in and of itself, lends absolutely no support to claims that particular marketing plans advocated by those business leaders "are taught" at the schools issuing the invitations and/or holding the Q & A's.

Nonetheless, and all the more, by all means please do investigate the matter at issue - which is whether or not the MK marketing plan is TAUGHT at Harvard Business School - and please do post your findings, I look forward to seeing them.

Bunny W - 17 Feb 2004

Hey Bunny,

Just because a single level company pays a portion of a consultants (and not all consultants I might add) income in an MLM type pay structure DOES NOT make MK a MLM Company. Let me see if I can kind of explain it a bit better...It's kind of like a University such as Harvard using case studies (a few to boot) about compensation, marketing, business launches, etc.,. on a certain successful company for education. Even though they are doing that; it doesn't mean that there is an actual MK Marketing Plan 101 Class at Harvard. I'm certain you will understand what I'm saying.

As far as Harvard goes, I would use different wording when speaking about MK's history being taught at Harvard. They do however, use quit a few of their business practices as examples. That alone speaks volumes......

National....gets bonuses from the company for offspringing Gets commission from ALL HER offspring, 1st, 2nd and 3rd LINE & personal unit & area (3 levels right there) Offspring Directors......Get Unit Volume commission & Personal Team Commission & commission from the offspring directors below them. Team Leader/Senior Consultant/DIQ....get commissions from the consultant Consultant.....places order

There I have painted a basic structure of pay......I currently see several levels of pay, you can add in even more levels with the added levels of directorship....

Also........go to google and simply type in MARY KAY MLM and post your findings here....not trying to argue with you, but I fail to see what the big whoop is when we are identifying the structure of this business......Networking means you recruit others into the business,simple. Also, as I mentioned in my post #67 in the archives.......go to www.pyramidschemealert.org and find some fascinating info on there....yes, MK says it's not, but I want you, as you investigate to truly read some of these concepts and how they parallel what is being 'taught' and 'preached' in this company.....very similar in my book....pay particular note to the 10 lies, especially the one about Christian values. The MLM point has been discussed at length in archived posts, but it's fun to revisit.

Curious, what is your status in the company Rebekah?? I am asking to gleen what level you are at, as most consultants below directorship have the zeal and loyalty that sometimes causes undue defensiveness of the company and to those who are simply trying to provide information on these message boards. Not attacking you or anyone, be sure of that....but many women leave this company and it is their interests I am concerned about as well as those who are entering it to know what they are getting into so they can make a wise choice. I have many friends who are in this company and I truly hope they do well.....they appreciate information as many directors/recruiters withhold things that need to be known....I am unsure why, and not everyone reads every book that comes with the kit....I didn't even know corporate phone numbers were listed in the calendar book we get....and I consider myself pretty much normal and representative of the 'norm' as I have good company in the group of X-Directors, many, thousands maybe........Bunny is also a consultant and we are here simply to try to be informative and add to post #1 with facts, etc.

At Harvard, Yale, and all the other colleges, MLM structures may be studied and Mary Kay mentioned in those business courses, but it is a huge assumption that there is a curriculum based on Mary Kay itself. As you read other marketing plans from other MLM type businesses, such as Amway/Quixtar, etc.....they all claim to be 'taught about at Harvard'.....again, it is a stretch....like the No Quota bit without all the info upfront........I am sure MLM type structures are taught and Mary Kay Inc is a very visible business and the structures are brilliant if I might add. I think they would be worth mentioning in a business class.....figure....the company hires an INDEPENDENT sales force, doesn't have to pay them squat regarding benefits til they achieve status in that itty bitty percentile at the top, but only limited health/life insurance which would cost someone the profits from a few bottles of Moisturizer anyway...but no UI, SSI, etc. Then, they have the sales force ordering 'wholesale' and still make a profit off the wholesale orders.....$11 for a bottle of visibly fit.....guess that's where the car $ come from. Then, they don't advertise, saving a boatload, then they don't accept anything but cash for orders, saving them even more in collections........etc. etc. They should be able to do things in MK 'style' cause they can afford it and the sales force paid for it.

I talked to a guy at the cell phone business in my area, when I was in MK, he said they were just talking about it in his school too. But, didn't go into details about WHAT they were talking about........maybe someone should call 1-800-Harvard and get the scoop and post it........

Hey Rebekah:

you say: " Just because a single level company pays a portion of a consultants (and not all consultants I might add) income in an MLM type pay structure DOES NOT make MK a MLM Company. "

Well, okay, it seems that you are using a definition for mlm that differs from that of the DSA (and others), and yours seems to include (you can correct me by giving your full definition, but I'll just respond to what you've said thus far) 1) a requisite for each and every consultant to be paid at least a portion of his/her compensation "in an mlm type pay structure," by which you must mean that each and every consultant must receive an override on others' sales as well as commission on his/her own sales. But how would that be possible, unless no direct recruitment relationship were required and the larger company would pool for sales totals and commissions, then divvy up the pot and include override percentages in all payouts to all sales consultants, while retaining the "levels" on paper, to determine the percentages - which I guess could happen, in theory ... does any network sales outfit operate this way? and, 2) some other, unnamed conditions/requisites must obtain in order that the structure be deemed an mlm - and what are those? (I'm not being a smartass, here, I really don't know the answer to any of this, and am curious to know.)

The Harvard thing: the confusion, I think, centers on what is meant by "taught," and most people, rightly or wrongly, take that to mean "advocated" or "endorsed" - in other words, the mavens at Harvard Biz "teach" their students to implement a particular marketing (or other) plan or structure in future business ventures. In that sense I don't think Harvard "teaches" network marketing; I do think that some business authors and "gurus" have written and spoken highly of Ms Ash, especially of her personal drive and people management/motivational skills. And I think that Harvard has, clearly, examined the MK business structure: in at least one case study, and two recorded Q & A's with students; and, that amounts to learning about something, so I guess it amounts to teaching about something, but falls short of "teaching it" in the sense of "affirming it to be a reliably sound and demonstrated method; informing students on the advisability of its implementation; and instructing them in how to implement it." I don't think the latter is going on at Harvard in re MK marketing methods, but I could certainly be wrong about that. Maybe we should call and ask a neutral party at Harvard (someone not associated with MK or Ms Banks).

And, following along Laura's post, it's well to note that simply because a certain business structure/practice enhances the bottom line, by maximizing profitability on a cheap-to-manufacture product, and/or exploiting workforce by legally avoiding the provision/costs of benefits to (all but a very few) workers, does not, in and of itself, make such practices desirable, or even, ultimately, sound and enduring.

After all, businesses that run maquilladoras, or employ unpaid chinese political prisoners, show impressive profitability, too.

Laura has identified at least 3 levels of compensation source for a National, and I have heard that some people start their definition of mlm at 5 identifiable levels ...but it gets a bit murky, really, because as Laura shows, it is a chain that links from the very top to the newest consultants at the bottom ...

I've seen/heard women say that MK products are overpriced, and at first I was surprised, because the price points seem fairly competitive against department store brands, for instance; but then, as you learn about the pay structure in MK, you see that the products could no doubt be merchandised at much lower price points through a different sales structure. And that leads back to a frequent "test" question for mlm's: is the focus on product sales/product quality (i.e. value for money spent by the end consumer), or on recruiting additional sales force to maximize compensation "up the line?"

So, Rebekah, you feel strongly that MK is NOT, as you say, an mlm: how, then, do you define mlm and how does MK not fit the definition; and we can all keep researching the Harvard question, I would think ... a definite answer can found, I'm sure.

Again, I'm not being a smartass here, or intending to be provocative in any way: I am genuinely curious.

Bunny - 17 Feb 2004

Hi all - new to this board...

I am a DIQ debuting in MAY - I don't see anything wromg with my director and her director, and her director being compensated from the company to help me and my sister DIQs/consultants. Mary Kay was such a smart women when she designed the company to work the way it does. Directors have the most sucess when their units are sucessful - and does ANY ONE on this board understand how much time and energy our directors use? Are there women in Mary Kay that find out it doesn't work for them? Yes definately. Are there women in Mary Kay that love it and could not imagine doing anything else? Most definately. But truly if you work your business and SERVICE your customers the way Mary Kay intended and honestly believe in the philosophy of the company then your sales will start to add up. Mary Kay NEVER intended to have women buy large quantities of product just to "Fluff" a directors pocket. Directors are taught to help women achieve their dreams - if a women tells a director they want the car, the directorship, etc. then she needs the inventory size that will allow her to do so. It is a matter of fact that women will buy mostly when then need it and if a consultant asks her to wait she will not - instead she will go to the store and buy something else. Indeed, Lancome and Le Mer would never ask their customers to wait, would they?

I don't believe that Mary Kay is a horrible as many people on this board make it out to be. Mary Kay has no requirement about recruiting to "recruit additional sales force to maximize compensation 'up the line'". Indeed, if a woman is not excited about trying a Mary Kay business, then a consultant is smarter to keep her as a customer because the comission on selling her product is much higher then the comission you make on her sales as her recruiter. (Almost 10x higher). This is where consultants need to know the difference between a legit prospect and a happy customer. Ladies, we have two ears and one mouth for a reason...

As for products not being worthy of the price point - did anyone ever stop to think how CHEAP the department store brands would be if they did not have the overhead associated with counter space, counter help, storage costs, and let's not forget their commission structures... perhaps Estee Lauder, MAC, Lancome, and LE MER would actually be affordable?!? I shutter to think how close Clinique would come to Avon with no overhead.

No I am not a newbe to MK and I am not being defensive - it just strikes me as extremely odd that the same women who want to yell and scream about Mary Kay not being a "get rich quick scheme" are the exact same women who are complaining about the fact that you have to WORK your business like a business in order to make it financially beneficial...

On a personal note, I love this company. There is nothing like the feeling you get when you know that you helped another woman feel special because she had a good time or feels better about her self becaue she took time out for just her.

I realize I won't change the opinions of those who feel jaded or cynical about MK, but I hope that everyone realizes that not everyone in Mary Kay is interested in making a fast buck. Some of us really believe that this is an awesome opportunity, some of us are willing to work with women to achieve their dreams. Some of us do MK for reasons other then the $$$, often times they are very personal reasons and no one has the right to "tarnish" someone elses reasons and goals for the sake of "simply trying to provide information on these message boards". I hope that anyone who researches this site and others in their quests to make a decision about Mary Kay that is right for them, ultimately looks into their own hearts and dreams to makes their OWN decisions.

Johanna Future Director and National Director 2 time gold medal winner (because I care) Star Consultant (because I SOLD the product)

Hi Johanna,

First of all, I'm happy that MK is turning out to be such a great experience for you, and for others like you. All the same, some people have had a very different, and decidedly not-so-great, experience, and have tried to explain, here and on other forums, just how it was for them, and how they feel about all of it; a report of good experience and a report of bad experience can both be, simultaneously, equally truthful accountings of a Mary Kay career.

That's why the people who have had bad (sometimes appallingly bad) experiences just don't understand why they are so often labelled as lazy - didn't work the business - failures (many were, in fact, successful) bearing malice; they are simply telling the truth of their experience, just as you, presumably, are telling the truth of yours.

The mlm question wasn't whether or not mlm's are a good idea, it was whether or not the MK pay structure can be considered to be consistent with that of an mlm. There has been some disagreement about that, and you seem to come down on the side of, yes, it is, but that's a good thing. Well, others disagree, and strongly, both as to whether or not it is, as well as whether or not it's a good thing if it is, an mlm-type pay structure.

I've not seen anyone here "yell and scream about MK not being a get rich quick scheme," I must have missed those posts. I have seen accountings of painful and troubling experiences of unethical recruiting, and other business, practices: such experiences, even if rare, are surely a fair topic for discussion; and, by all accounts, in MK such ethical failures are, in fact, far from rare.

The foregoing does not in any way invalidate your own good experience; but your good experience does not erase or invalidate those misfortunate experiences suffered by others.

As for pricing and affordability in cosmetic products: it would be very interesting to compare the "overhead" of both the MK pay structure, added to that overhead borne by consultants and directors, with the overhead of conventional cosmetic houses. As well, the product lines you mentioned are, even at their present price points, sufficiently affordable (and desirable) to a more than adequate customer base, else the products would long since have disappeared from store shelves, which is not at all the case, as we can clearly see. Existing cosmetic brands continue to add to their product lines, while new brands proliferate.

On a final point: many, many women today do regularly order cosmetics, as well as other consumer goods, from online retailers, local representatives and distributors, television shopping networks, and/or catalogues, and quite happily await home delivery via usps, fedex, or ups.

In any case, congratulations on your achievements, and all good wishes for your continued success,

Bunny Watson - 02 Mar 2004

Topic MaryKayOpinion131 . { Edit | Ref-By | Attach | Diffs | r1.7 | > | r1.6 | > | r1.5 | > | r1.4 | >... }

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

Revision r1.7 - 02 Mar 2004 - 10:59 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.