Mary Kay NSD Amy Dunlap: You Do Not Own Your Own Business
Late last year, Mary Kay Cosmetics sued former National Sales Director Amy Dunlap. Amy left Mary Kay to join Isagenix with her husband Shane. You may remember that Isagenix is the company for former Mary Kay hotshots to go to, including the likes of Robin Dunda, Hillari Courtney, JoAnn Blackmon, and Christine Peterson.
Amy Dunlap was appointed as Mary Kay NSD on March 1, 2005, and here is the contract she signed when becoming an NSD. Despite being at the top of the Mary Kay pyramid, Amy claims in an affidavit in the lawsuit that she wasn’t making much money:
After years of being a Consultant with Mary Kay Inc., I became a National Sales Director (“NSD”) for it on or around March 1, 2005. During my last few years with Mary Kay Inc. my sales bonus and commission income ranged from approximately $100,000.00 to $140,000.00. I resigned as NSD and began working as an Isagenix distributor in 2011. Isagenix, based in Phoenix, Arizona, markets mostly nutritional supplement products. Since becoming an Isagenix distributor in July 2011, my husband and I have been paid approximately $80,000.00 in bonuses and commissions generated primarily by my efforts in building our Isagenix business By my third month with Isagenix we were making $20,000.00 per month in bonuses and commissions from my efforts, which is much more income on a monthly basis than I had been making with Mary Kay Inc. before I resigned my NSD position.
Thus, she left Mary Kay for greener pastures. You can see in this Isagenix document that Amy and Shane Dunlap are listed several times. (Large file!) You will also note Dunda, Blackmon, and Courtney listed in the top 100 earners.
Mary Kay Inc. alleges Amy violated the NSD agreement that she signed. From the Mary Kay Complaint in the lawsuit:
“…certain on-going obligations for a period of two years after the termination of the agreement. She agreed not to (1) solicit or recruit Mary Kay’s independent sales force to sell products or services other than those sold by Mary Kay; (2) use any names, mailing lists or other non-public information she obtained during her association with Mary Kay for recruiting or promoting the sale of any other company’s products in the United States; (3) solicit or induce any of Mary Kay’s independent sales force from terminating their business relationship with Mary Kay; and (4) receive any financial benefit from any other company or business organization based upon the solicitation, recruitment, enrollment for such company of any person whom she knows or has reason to believe is under contract as a member of Mary Kay’s independent sales force.
Ms. Dunlap’s Termination and Violation of the NSD Agreement
11. On September 5, 2011, Ms. Dunlap notified Mary Kay of her decision to terminate her Mary Kay business to “focus on ministry” with her family… Ms. Dunlap’s termination of the agreement was effective September 30, 2011.
12. Mary Kay discovered, shortly after receiving Ms. Dunlap’s letter, Ms. Dunlap’s true intentions. She had no intention to “focus on her ministry,” as she represented to Mary Kay, but instead embarked on a new business, designed to compete with Mary Kay and to poach its IBCs. Specifically, Ms. Dunlap used (and continues to use) Mary Kay’s confidential business information, including lists of names, addresses, and telephone numbers and other detailed records provided to her by Mary Kay to compete with Mary Kay in a different direct sales business.
13. In addition to using this information in violation of her NSD Agreement, Ms. Dunlap has also (1) solicited, recruited, and attempted to solicit and recruit Mary Kay’s independent sales force to sell products or services other than those sold by Mary Kay; (2) used names, mailing lists or other non-public information she obtained during her association with Mary Kay for recruiting and attempting to recruit, and promoting the sale of another company’s products in the United States; (3) solicited, induced and attempted to solicit and induce Mary Kay’s independent sales force to terminate their business relationship with Mary Kay; and (4) has received financial benefit from another company or business organization based upon the solicitation, recruitment, enrollment for such company of persons she knows or has reason to believe is under contract as a member of Mary Kay’s independent sales force. Ms. Dunlap has engaged in these activities within two years of the date of her termination of the NSD Agreement.
Of course, Amy is denying that she violated the contract, and she is making claims of her own. After all these years of collecting commission checks from Mary Kay, Amy Dunlap is now alleging that the National Sales Director Agreement should be declared null and void. It shouldn’t be enforced against her. Amy is counterclaiming against Mary Kay, alleging deceptive trade practices. Essentially her argument here is that Mary Kay lies to women when it says you “own your own business”:
11. Mary Kay, in the conduct of its multilevel marketing business, has engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive acts and practices, as the purveyor and seller of an Independent Business Consultant business to Defendant and the many other Independent Beauty Consultants, Unit Independent Sales Directors, and National Sales Directors similarly situated to her, which acts and practices are unlawful under the provisions of §17.46 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.
12. By agreeing to acquire her beauty consulting business as an independent contractor, entrepreneur and the owner of her own business as a result of her contracts with Mary Kay, Defendant was a consumer of the Defendant’s services as that term is defined under §17.45 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, having relied on the written and oral representations of Plaintiff that, as an “independent dealer” she was the owner of her own business. Throughout her relationship with Mary Kay, until the very end, she was deceived by the company’s continuous, non-stop, orchestrated campaign through speeches at the annual Seminars, business opportunity meetings, CDs, DVDs, cassette/VCR tapes, brochures, letters and emails, representing to her and the other Consultants in her National Sales Director Unit, and throughout the company for that matter, that they were being provided by Mary Kay the business opportunity of “owning” their “own business.”
13. Mary Kay, among other deceptive practices, has repeatedly represented to Defendendant, its other Independent Beauty Consultants, Unit Independent Sales Directors, and Independent National Sales Directors that their status as such independent contractors affords them the complete ownership of their “own business” which is a deliberate falsehood inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s executives are all well aware of the fact that Mary Kay strictly forbids its Consultants, Sales Directors, and National Sales Directors to sell, transfer or will their “businesses,” and wrongfully enjoys the fruits of the labors of those independent contractors by forfeiture of their right to receive the “income stream” or value of it when they die, leave or are terminated by Mary Kay. These trade practices of Mary Kay were misleading, deceptive, and false in that Mary Kay never compensated Defendant for her business after taking it from her without compensation when she resigned as National Sales Director, and would not allow her to sell or will her “business.” Under the provisions of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, Mary Kay violated the provisions of § 2.210(b) of the Texas Business & Commerce Code which renders Section 13 of the Independent National Sales Director Agreement (Exhibit “A” hereto) void since that section requires that contractual rights such as are provided for in the Independent National Sales Director Agreement are assignable thereby allowing Defendant Dunlap’s business to be assigned or otherwise transferred by gift or will. Defendant is entitled to an award of reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and court costs pursuant to the provisions of §17.50(d) for being required to defend herself from Plaintiff’s attempt to enforce its false, misleading, and deceptive agreement.
14. The intentionally false, misleading and deceptive acts which are complained of in this Counterclaim have been committed knowingly, and intentionally, giving rise to damages for mental anguish, including intense and continuous feelings of humiliation suffered by Defendant at the hands of the Plaintiff, as well as the economic damages suffered by the Defendant herein, in an amount which is presently unascertained but which Defendant believes to be in excess of $1,000,000.00, which amount should be trebled under the provisions of §17.50 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, making the total amount of her damages not less than $3,000,000.00 .
While I agree with Amy Dunlap’s accusation that Mary Kay is lying when it says you “own your own business,” I also believe that Amy told the very same lie all the years she was in Mary Kay. I think each and every member of Amy’s national area should now sue her personally for the same lie.
How do I know this? Here is a document that I downloaded from Amy Dunlap’s website on July 14, 2006, entitled Frequently Asked Questions. It was a flyer for Mary Kay husbands. And in this flyer, Amy says:
1. Exactly what will my wife be doing?
She will be teaching skin care to women and selling Mary Kay products. She will be self employed in her own business. She will not be my employee. She will hold skin care classes and facials for small groups of women.…
4. What sort of hours will my wife be expected to work?
She may set her own hours since she’s in business for herself. We do not impose any quotas or requirements. However, we suggest that the two of you develop a weekly plan sheet every week so you know and agree upon her schedule. Her hours can vary depending on family plans and desired income. It is vital that you agree upon her schedule and that she works as planned. The more hours worked the higher her income potential.…
6. What is in the starter kit?
Your wife is setting up her own business, and she needs tools with which to work. The kit includes demonstration products for her use at skin care classes. She also receives a selection of literature to help her get started. This is essentially all she will need to get started. It actually contains over $306 in full size products, samples and supplies for only $100.
Oops. I suppose Amy was hoping no one had any of her training documents. While I have no desire to help Mary Kay Inc. in any way, fair is fair. If she’s going to claim that Mary Kay is violating the law, it is only fair to point out that she did exactly what she is accusing MK of doing.
Amy’s other counterclaim has to do with anti-trust laws. She is basically saying that through the non-compete clauses in the consultant agreement, sales director agreement, and national sales director agreement, Mary Kay is making it so that women can’t earn a living through other multi-level marketing companies:
19. The anti-competition covenants on which Plaintiff insists every Mary Kay independent consultant sign, whether an Independent Beauty Consultant, Unit Independent Sales Director, or Independent National Sales Director such as the Defendant herein, are part of a concerted and effective effort by Plaintiff to vertically restrain trade by tying up and eliminating potential competition from Plaintiff’s independent contractors and other direct sales companies much smaller than Plaintiff who sell cosmetic products similar to Plaintiff’s line of cosmetic products, particularly in, but not limited to, the Texas market. Plaintiff is attempting to restrain Defendant by use of its unlawful non-compete agreement from competing with Plaintiff and those other independent contractors with whom Defendant seeks to recruit to assist her in building her current direct sales business. Such restraints by Plaintiff are unreasonable, and because Plaintiff has exerted such tight control over its independent contractors, particularly as it applies to attempts to do business in the Texas market for cosmetics, Defendant has been unfairly damaged, and the growth of her business stunted, economically in an undetermined amount but in no event less than $1,000,000.00 in her efforts to build her business in Texas and elsewhere subsequent to resigning as a National Sales Director with Plaintiff.
I’ve pointed out before how restrictive the Mary Kay agreements are. This is nothing new, and in all of Amy’s years with Mary Kay, she didn’t seem to have any problem with that agreement. It was all fine while she was getting the commission checks, right?
Mary Kay responded in their motion to dismiss Amy’s counterclaims that:
- She was not a “consumer, ” so the Texas law she cites doesn’t apply. Under that law, a consumer is a purchaser of goods or services, and that her complaint arises out of that purchase. Mary Kay says Dunlap did not acquire anything under the NSD agreement by purchase, and that what she received (the right to earn commissions) was not a good or service.
- The NSD agreement does not violate Texas law by prohibiting the sale or transfer of Dunlap’s distributorship, as she alleges. The Texas law says that “unless otherwise agreed,” rights can be assigned. And in the NSD agreement, Dunlap “otherwise agree.” (i.e. When she signed the contract, she agreed she couldn’t sell or transfer.)
- Dunlap objects to the non-compete, which Mary Kay says is more accurately a non-solicitation agreement. Mary Kay says Amy hasn’t shown how the non-solicitation agreement has an adverse affect on the market (impairing competition), so this claim should be thrown out.
The repeated representations that Defendant owned her “own business” which is inconsistent with Section 13 “Assignability” of the Independent National Sales Director Agreement (“INSDA”) attached to the Answer and Counterclaim as Exhibit “A,” shows a conscious scheme and plan by Plaintiff which was a deceptive act and practice under the DTPA. Defendant built an organization of consultants in Mary Kay which is still generating substantial sales and income from those sales to the Plaintiff. The forfeiture by Plaintiff of her income stream from those ongoing sales by the organization of consultants that she built is “unconscionable” under the DTPA. Defendant has alleged her right to receive compensation for such a forfeiture in paragraph 13, Count 1 of her Counterclaim. Plaintiff’s refusal to allow her to obtain the benefit of the income stream is, at the very least, grossly inconsistent with the last sentence of § 2.210(b).
So that’s the lawsuit in a nutshell, and tomorrow we’re going to talk more about Amy Dunlap’s earnings while in Mary Kay. Join us again as we pull back the curtain and continue to expose Mary Kay for the predator that it is.
Visit the 
Well freaking fantastic research Tracy. I can not wait for more. I would like to point out this too. In #11 of her complaint she wrote:
“11. Mary Kay, in the conduct of its multilevel marketing business,…which acts and practices are unlawful under the provisions of §17.46 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.”
In her training doc you provided #3 says:
“3. Is Mary Kay a pyramid scheme or multi-level marketing?
There are no levels of wholesalers and discounts between the Company and the customer.
Every consultant and director, regardless of level or seniority, purchases product directly from
the Company at the same published wholesale prices. We are considered to be a ‘dual marketing
company” –ALL consultants have the same buying discount.”
So for years she told ladies they own their own business and that it was a daul marketing scheme, but once she gets sued it is all different.
Wow … just wow. So they realized that Amy’s real “ministry” is making oodles of money any way she can. What a shock and surprise it must have been for them.
Who was it who took her Sunday School class enrollment lists and used them as marketing leads? What sort of a dishonest person would do that? Oh, it was Mary Kay? So it’s OK for Mary Kay to use a church’s efforts for her own gain, but not OK when someone does it to Mary Kay’s company?
They encourage women to exploit every network and collection of information they can find, and turn in outrage when someone dies it to them.
Defendant built an organization of consultants in Mary Kay which is still generating substantial sales and income from those sales to the Plaintiff. The forfeiture by Plaintiff of her income stream from those ongoing sales by the organization of consultants that she built is “unconscionable” under the DTPA
And did Amy never profit from one of her director’s consultants “falling upward” into her unit when the director didn’t persuade them to order enough?
As long as the income stream was aimed at her pockets, she didn’t have a problem with it.
Dear Lazy Gardens;
No shit. Good call!
While I agree with Amy Dunlap’s accusation that Mary Kay is lying when it says you “own your own business,” I also believe that Amy told the very same lie all the years she was in Mary Kay. I think each and every member of Amy’s national area should now sue her personally for the same lie.
And, because Amy has claimed and testified – through her filings – that it is untrue and emotionally damaging, she CAN NOT argue about it. She can’t have it both ways.
“Estoppel” … it’s a good thing. And it can bite you in the butt if you aren’t careful.
Estoppel is a legal term referring to a series of legal doctrines that preclude “a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied.“
Isn’t this just rich? Amy probably spent a wholllllleeeeee lot of money on this attorney (the same one Robin Dunda used) and neither of them stopped and asked themselves what Amy’s training materials said and how that might conflict with her claims in the lawsuit.
Note these claims about not being able to sell the distributorship were also made in the Dunda lawsuit. I have no idea what settlement was reached, but obviously the attorney thinks it’s a worthwhile issue to keep pursuing.
http://www.pinktruth.com/2007/10/amended-complaint-robin-blackmon-dunda/
OMG.
AHHHHHhhhhh.
Hot double dang damn.
That felt so good to read, I am gonna read it again.
This could get good. Amy has the knowledge to spill a whole lotta dirt about MK and it’s practices. Because, contractually, she could not do another MLM until two years after hew resignation (which is a pretty typical non-compete clause), do you think she’s just slinging a little mud now, letting Corpse know that she can cough up a bunch more sh*t it they continue to pursue their lawsuit against her. If she spews too much, they may reach a confidential setltmenet out of court.
In the meantime, I’m going to sit back and watch show as the cards fall.
Aren’t we the ones who raised the issue first? That you truly never “own your own business” in Mary Kay? I swear, as far back as 5-6 years ago, PT did a front page article on this lie.
The whole pink kettle is a pot of hypocrisy. What a colossal waste of energy and effort…to defend this fraud against the counter claims of fraud, with nothing but lies and self serving practices between them. The entire company is a mask…pun intended, that pretends it is admirable, noble and upright, all the while, it was built on dysfunction and predatorial practices.
I hope every casual reader today who is in this company or considering joining, just stop. Get out. It’s a sad joke, of abused women, unable to see how manipulated they are and literally paralyzed with fear that they have no other options, so they are desperate to convince you that all is well. “It’s wonderful in the pink bubble”.
It isn’t. It’s a pink bear trap that snaps shut on your ankle, sucks out your resources, and blinds you into doing the same thing to others to survive. And Look at Amy. She’ll be paying for this association for decades.
I’m not sure how the affidavit about her income plays into this. Regardless if she’s making a million a day, it still doesn’t alter the fact that she violated her non-compete.
Amy filed to have the case removed from state court in Texas, to federal court. To do so, she had to prove that the amount in dispute is $75,000 or greater. The affidavit lays that out.
I’m not defending either side when I say this, but this definitely shows how screwed up MK (as a scheme/business) really is. Both sides are showing their deception, lies, manipulations, and loopholes. It’s sad really.
And over there at Isagenix our sweet little victimized former NSD is parroting exactly the same “own your own business” lines she parroted at Mary Kay:
http://www.isagenix.com/us/en/home.dhtml
“Isagenix will bring out the best in you. It’s an opportunity for health, wealth and happiness. You can be your own boss, own your own business and be supported by a multi-million dollar company. You’re in business for yourself, but not by yourself.”
I guess it’s only a lie when it costs her money.
And here’s something else I found: Travis Garza Interviews Amy Dunlap “Why Isagenix?” October 18, 2011
http://personalpower.podomatic.com/player/web/2011-10-19T08_21_48-07_00
Listening to the interviewer and Amy is just stomach-wrenching. They make it sound so simple: She just called 10 business-minded people, who each made a list of 10 more business-minded people, and so on… She says, “It’s easy. That’s all I did.” Totally omitted is the fact that her 110 business-minded people were all senior level MLMers.
The interviewer is completely misleading about Amy’s history, summing it up as merely, “You’ve had some network marketing experience.” Well, that description applies to just about anyone, doesn’t it?
There’s another discussion in her Isagenix interview which hints at the whole MLM fraud; it just doesn’t pass the smell test. Amy expects to be making a six-figure income right away. Each of her 10 business builders and her 100 granddaughter business builders will be swimming in cash too. But she later says “There are over 200,000 people worldwide who consistently use Isagenix.” Do the math. Only 200,000???. Those 200,000 would have to be ordering an unrealistic truckload of products to provide Amy’s six-figure income, and her downline’s fancy incomes, and the six-figure incomes of every other established Isagenix senior marketer.
And then she credits God for her MLM opportunity. My mother always said there’s a special place in hell for people who misuse God like that.
Christine Peterson was my NSD’s NSD. I was told she retired as a millionaire right around the time I started Dec. 2009. Did she go to Isagenix at that time? Meaning I was lied to yet again.
Yeah, she’s a hypocrite, but if you’re going to use that yardstick, then so are we. Who here hasn’t parroted MK lies in the past to attempt to profit from them? It doesn’t make the message any less relevent. We all know the type of women who tend to make it to NSD, but unfortunately, it’s probably going to come down to one of them and their knowledge to bring the Pink Scam down. Not that I think it’s likely, MK’s reach in the Texas court system is pretty well known.
I don’t know what kind of person she is, but personally, I hope she wins. That ridiculous company needs to be stopped. Women in MK use their personal friends, family members, coworkers, and aquaintences as recruits. The fact that MK thinks they “own” those people or their personal information is laughable.
Sorry, but “we” aren’t all hypocrites. Speak for yourself.
I’m shocked MK Corp hasn’t attempted to sue Allison LaMarr either …. she for sure is using former MK contacts to promote her blog, products, etc.
I also find it humorous that “Mary Kay says Dunlap did not acquire anything under the NSD agreement by purchase.”
I can’t help but laugh at the double standard. So…what about all the women who were beneath Amy in MK? Were they lied to, just as Amy claims she was lied to be Corp? Can her former unit get together and form a class action lawsuit?
Its kind of amusing how MK Corp picks its battles. They are out to get Amy, yet Allison LaMarr is still using MK for her own goals. Maybe Corp isn’t going after Allison because she’s obviously not making the $$ Amy is?
Even more hilarious, Amy got caught in her own lie of quitting MK to work on her ministry. She obviously pissed some people off in MK, why else would they be going after her with such passion?
This is great, Tracy, thanks for the research. Can’t wait to see how this all unfolds.
OK… I’m one of those people who knows only enough about legal matters and terminology to get myself into a hot mess. I love watching the court shows on TV and watching some of the drama TV series like all the “Law & Order’s”. Again just enough information to be dangerous and stupid.
There is something that I routinely hear over and over in many of the small claims court programs I watch. The term is called “Clean Hands”. I’ve seen many cases where the plaintiff (the person who brings the lawsuit against another) has engaged in illegal activities with the defendent, either directly or indirectly and is now trying to recoup their loss from that illegal activity by way of having a judgement granted in their favor.
One case I heard: 2 people rent a home. Person A is selling illegal drugs out of the home. The other person (Person B) is wanted on a domestic violence warrant. Police show up at the home to serve the DV warrant and discover the illegal drug activity – small amount of drugs, packaging material, scales, paraphanelia, etc. Both people are arrested. Neither can make bail. They are evicted from the home and in the process, their personal belongings are disposed of. Person A – the drug dealer – files a small claims suit against Person B, charging that had Person B never brought the police to the home because of the DV warrant, they would still have their personal possessions – assuming the police never discover Person A selling drugs and raid the place. They are seeking the maximum allowed by their state of $5000 for replacement costs of clothes and furnishings. Person B has filed a counterclaim for $5000 for defamation of character claiming that had Person A not been selling drugs, they wouldn’t have been charged with being in possession of illegal drugs in addition to their DV charge – they now feel their reputation has been tarnished as being labeled a drug dealer, when in reality they are only guilty of domestic abuse and it’s going to make it harder for them to find employment.
The judge actually laughs and makes the statement “Are you kidding me?” The judge lets both sides tell their case before making their ruling. Because the plaintiff-Person A does not have “clean hands” (meaning they engaged in illegal activity which created their loss) the law does not allow for them to be compensated for that loss.
As a result of the illegal activity, the judge rules a big fat “zero” on Person A’s suit. Person B’s suit was dismissed as there was no substance to a defamation claim.
As I look at the MK/Amy Dunlap situation and the others mentioned, I can’t help but think both sides of this case have “dirty hands”. I realize that some of the business and commerce codes in TX are written in such a way that may give legitimacy to the direct sales companies and those that try to portray themselves as such. Pyramids are considered illegal and while MK staunchly defends against this premise of being a pyramid business, we all know they are definitely a pyramid scheme.
While I would love to see both sides just beat the crap out of each other and have something of real substance come from all of this, I have this gut feeling that MK with their deep legal pockets and lock on the TX judicial system, will come out relatively unscathed. I would like to see the judicial system recognize the deceptive business practices of both sides and declare them both losers (ah… make that lazy loosers!)
Most people at the top make it there by climbing over others. Of course at the top of any organization there’s going to be crooked people who want to take advantages at other’s ignorance. Those who aren’t won’t play all the politics needed to get there.
Overall this site really makes me cringe. Mary Kay is a pyramid scheme- those who say otherwise are lying, but it doesn’t take a lot of digging to find out. People at the top of Mary Kay pyramid don’t make as much as most because people at the bottom make more. Those at the top won’t make anywhere as much as those who own the business- well duh. There’s nothing (well apart from tons of $) stopping you from creating you’re truly own business. MK provides you with a cookie cuter plan where you can act like you own your own business but all the leg work is taken out of it- along with the potential cash. Of course Mary Kay isn’t top of the line- I would hope a $55 serum doesn’t compete with a $325 one.
The fact that this site validates that the buy back guarantees are all real and not that hard is kinda miraculous in itself. Inventory at the very beginning for a consultant is stupid and very smart for the company. First it invests the consultant who now feels she has to give this thing a try. If people continue to purchase products to keep up there ‘image’ of success, well that’s there own fault. Also the company can make a pretty smart bet that a consultant who is too shy to call up her aunt and try for a pity sale is probably way too shy to call up corporate and cancel there inventory. But keeping you re-ordering customers’ foundations and products you will use as soon as you run out of the one your currently ordering isn’t a bad idea.
What people need are money management classes and business classes. No, 50%doesn’t happen. It’s just an easy number to work with. Just like the starter kit isn’t $100 its more likely around $113. Right there you can see the effects of sales tax and shipping. The bottom line is you can collect money, place an order, and keep the remaining money as profit. So a $600 party may only make $250 rather than $300 because you gave a hostess incentive, gift and gave away some catalogs. The consultant chose what she gave away and what she kept. If someone ‘invests’ money into giveaways and samples that aren’t yielding results, well then, stop. It’s not rocket science. Pay your shipping of $8.75 an order, pass your sales tax onto the customer, keep that one look book that comes in the applause magazine and don’t pass any out. Only accept cash and check, and make sure your customers come over to pick everything up so you’re not spending money on gas. Maybe you could even pass your shipping charge over to the customer’s. Anyways, you can make 50%-$8.75 profit if you choose to do so.
The bottom line is a consultant is a middle woman. Yet she is paid a lot more than any cashier at Walmart makes. Its funny how quick people are to attack the evils of corporations but then pick up a big mac and then grocery shop at target.
when you take into account all the prep time, costs of materials, gas, tolls, coaching of hostesses and actually holding the class, your hourly wage off of that $250 is way less then minimum wage. So don’t diss that Walmart cashier, because in reality she is making more money then any consultant and can get way better product (for less money) in the make up aisles.
“If people continue to purchase products to keep up there ‘image’ of success, well that’s there own fault.”
Unfortunately, they’re not buying just to keep up an image. Once you get “promoted” above the bottom level you have mandatory minimum purchase levels to maintain your position. Those mandatory minimums are, and have always been, unreasonably high.
If your team doesn’t purchase the minimum (which happens all too often), you have to make up the difference. When you don’t make up the difference by buying it yourself, that team you worked so hard to build gets ripped away from you and reassigned to someone else.
Natalka … I suggest you take your own advice and take a business class or two.
You cannot “collect money, place an order, and keep the remaining money as profit” because out of what you cleared on the transaction you have to pay your business expenses and taxes. Your business expenses are far more than a hostess gift and a couple bucks of samples. And your expenses for a party that produces $15 in sales are the same as for a party that produces $150.
As part of that business finance class, you will learn about how to evaluate the market. One look at the 40,000+ listings on eBay for cut-rate Mary Kay (or whatever your MLM is) tells me that there is not profit in it.
One look at FaceBook, with the hordes of consultant’s clamoring “buy from me at 25-40% off plus free shipping” tells me there is no profit in it.
The bottom line is a consultant is a middle woman. Yet she is paid a lot more than any cashier at Walmart makes.
Oh no she isn’t. A couple of years ago I analysed thousands of IBC incomes, as reported by their SDs, and it wasn’t pretty. At that time, 10 hours a week @ minimum wage = $200 a month take-home pay. To make that much money in MK sales, you have to consistently sell $600 a month (only 1/3 is spendable, remember?). How many do that? Only 995 of the 7,912 consultants (12.6%) were selling enough to equal or exceed the take-home pay of a teenager who works 10 hours a week as a minimum-wage burger flipper after school.
http://voices.yahoo.com/mary-kay-home-business-opportunity-flopportunity-133569.html
It’s worse now, because the minimum wage went UP.
And…a drive by posting. OMG Lazy I read that and you are twisted. My momma is on her second car you are twisted.
I think that there are people who are so naive or gullible or simply slimy enough that they can not read your article and think…WOW…maybe this is wrong on so many levels.
Well to you Natalka I don’t really get your post. Are you a consultant or you are defending them? So either way, you support pyramid schemes? I think you might be in the slimy category.
TRACY March 26, 2012 at 9:16 am #
Amy filed to have the case removed from state court in Texas, to federal court. To do so, she had to prove that the amount in dispute is $75,000 or greater. The affidavit lays that out.
Thanks, Tracy. I skimmed over it and didn’t realize it was to remove the case to federal court.
Natalka wrote: “MK provides you with a cookie cuter plan where you can act like you own your own business but all the leg work is taken out of it- along with the potential cash. ”
Actually, it’s just the opposite. All the leg work is done by the consultant. Once MK sells the product to the consultant, they’ve made their profit and they don’t care what happens. The consultant does all the legwork to find third-party customers. Sure, lots of people say MK wants consultants to sell the products, because if there were no sales they couldn’t recruit. That’s not completely true. MK only needs there to be enough sales to make the business plausible. As long as some women are selling – – even at low levels – – they can say the product is being sold. That’s enough to recruit with.
In these lawsuits of NSDs vs. MK, I always think it’s a shame someone has to win.
her hair looks like kate goslin from jon and kate plus 8 seems like mary kay directors favor that cut.
How do Christine Peterson and JoAnn Blackmon get by with joining Isagenix?
They didn’t blatantly use their Mary Kay mailing lists, which is what Amy is accused of doing.
They’re both no longer active with MK, so they can do what they want with regard to other MLMs.
Here’s a tidy clue-in that Dunlap’s idea of “ministry” might have been more about recruiting souls into Isagenix and less about sharing Jesus with them:
“(One goal is to IMPACT the St. Louis area Hurt and Hopeless!!!)
Over the past two years, I have spent a large amount of time volunteering in both local church ministry and outreach. Through this experience, I have found myself passionately desiring to dedicate even more time in ministry. As a child, I always assumed I would work in the ministry field. However, I have spent most of my adult life working in the education and sales fields. Both of these endeavors have been remarkable and have been such agents of growth.
The last six months my family has taken a step back to examine our life and to spend time looking at the possibility of what our future could hold. We have decided as a unit to dedicate our lives to serving others in a team approach. (Scrib’s note: “Team approach?” RED FLAG, people) This means making several changes both individually and as a group.
For now we are taking a huge step of faith. Today I resigned my position as a National Sales Director for Mary Kay Cosmetics. This was not an easy decision because I love the Mary Kay opportunity and the relationships that have been built as a result of serving with this company. However, I can’t deny the near burning passion I have to free my time to move in the direction that God is taking my family.
Throughout the next few months, we will be working together in my husband’s health and wellness business. Our focus will be on building assets to help further the ministry part of our dream. If you would like to follow our family in this new journey, just reply to this post and let me know and we will send you updates.”
~September 6, 2011 post from Dunlap’s Facebook page, which links to a blog post discussing leaving Mary Kay
Look what Dunlap says a month later:
“Excited for our first large Isagenix event in the St. Louis area!!! Come and learn all about the weight loss and career opp. My family has lost a combined 40lbs in 7 weeks and earned over $30,000 in commissions…this is WILD! Come check us out on October 24th at 7pm at the St. Charles Embassy Suites!!!”
Is this what she meant by her goal to “IMPACT the St. Louis area Hurt and Hopeless?”
I need a shower, possibly involving a sea urchin and some lye soap.
Did you know that Jim and Kathy Coover actively promote sponsorship of their paid staff worldwide to recruit people into their own Isagenix network and the CEO Sharron Walsh in Australia joins people in her own team by sending them free products and the line joins them is to help her earn further commisions which are separate from her paid position as a CEO.
I built a team in Australia and NZ 4 YEARS AGO and when I found out the fact that the CEO was actively targetting other MLM COMPANIES TO BUILD HER OWN iSAGENIX BUSINESS I asked how was that fair for the other distributors who did not have access to company supplies and Direct phjone contact to the office as she has. . I was immediately put on a compliance status and my distributorship was terminated .
THIS COMPANY PRACTICES BULLYING TACTICS WHEN SIMPLE PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF ASK questions which cause unequal oppourtunity which is fully supported by the owners Jim and Kathy Coover.
So the lady who has moved to this company be aware that they can take your business and the people you bring with you so easily
I just decided not to order any more MaryKay after reading this.
I am an Isagenix Consultant too. And, nope, I’m not on Amy’s team. But, I’m in her corner rooting for her now. I love the products and I have a ministry that I do not make money with. The freedom of Isagenix does allow me to work on helping others through my ministry. I’m not a big ministry, just a small, itty bitty one. And, I’m sure this is the same for Amy.
I’m disgusted that Mary Kay would do this. Our products don’t even compete with MaryKay. Gosh, I’d never work with a company that would go after people like that and sue them. Yikes, watch your backs, right! June 6, 2013
Lisa – All the MLMs do this. They have clauses in their contracts that prohibit taking people to the new company, or soliciting them to come to the new company.
Mary Kay, Amy Dunlap, and Isagenix ALL SUCK. Amy is a snake who was fine with MK’s con as long as she was on the gravy train. Now that she’s off, she’s crying fraud. Funny…. she does nearly the exact same thing with Isagenix that she did with MK.