Warning: Placing an Order for a Consultant
If you spent any time in Mary Kay, you probably became aware of sales directors and DIQs placing inventory orders for others. Sometimes it’s legit, and sometimes it’s not. The not: someone is trying to finish a unit or a car or a unit club, and they need more people or more orders. The scams range from signing someone up for MK without their knowledge and placing an order in their name, to reactivating an old consultant with an order they don’t know about, or placing an order in the name of a more current consultant without her knowledge.
It seems Mary Kay Inc. is at least looking at the issues and giving people the below warning when they place an order in someone else’s name. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying MK is actually trying to crack down on these stealth orders. Not at all. They benefit to the tune of MILLIONS of dollars of rogue orders a year. What they’re really doing is making it look like their compliance function is active and they’re making sure they don’t look like a pyramid scheme.
Visit the
This is boilerplate CYA. Mary Kay Corp does not want this practice to stop…in fact they actually want much, much more of it. However, they need to make sure they stay off the FTC’s radar. This means they need to give the appearance of disapproval wrt this practice.
If MKC really wanted to stop this behavior, they’d fix the portal to make sure IBCs can only order for themselves (and their own outside customers). They’d also require some sort of multi-factor authentication so IBC’s can’t share passwords. Then no one can order “on behalf of” another IBC. Voila! Problem solved. (Don’t hold your breath on that one.)
Once again, I notice a disturbing lack of curiosity on the part of Mary Kay consultants: “…The FTC is REALLLLLY watching closely and this is for them not a MK requirement.”
Why would this be? Ask the question, please, and research why the FTC looks for this type of activity. IBCs should know the “why” on all MK policies and directives, including the perspective of government oversight and legal authorities. Please, IBCs, don’t blindly accept MK’s incoherent explanations. And don’t believe anything shared by your upline that is not in writing from MK legal.
Every time MK Legal suggests an IBC take a legal question to their Sales Director, they are likely up to no good. In a real company the size of Mary Kay, employees would be directed to read official company policy directly. But MK Legal is counting on “the telephone game” to distort MK policy…to MK advantage of course!
Excellent analysis, DJ!
What struck me about MK’s boilerplate was the concluding sentence:
“…may negatively affect your agreements with Mary Kay.”
What does that even mean? Fines? Demotion? Expulsion? A nastygram? If there are consequences, then name them. Don’t vaguely threaten to “maybe, um, do something.” Unless you’re not planning to do anything, except to put on a show for the FTC?
DingDingDing!
DJ, yes, there seems to be a disturbing sort of whaaaaa? air as though it’s never occurred to these people that people might be ordering for less than above board purposes
I remember when I ordered for my last few consultants to complete DIQ requirements, I really thought I was the only one who did such a thing. I had full permission from my consultants and had sold most of the products I was ordering to my own customers, but I felt like the most underhanded, dishonest person in the world! The Pink Fog is a very myopic place. Until it’s not, and then you end up on Pink Truth!
Tracy is absolutely correct–Mary Kay has no interest in stopping this practice. But they have every interest in making it appear as though they’re trying to stop it. With a disclaimer like this, they can throw blame back on sales directors and blame systemic problems on “a few bad apples.” Throw out the bad apples they discover this way and, voila, the FTC goes away and MK continues on as it has for nearly 60 years, bamboozling countless consultants.
I don’t think MK wants it to happen, I think they just don’t care as long as the orders come in from somewhere.
Oh that pesky FTC meddling in their affairs and making them follow the rules! 🙄
I’m wondering how old Ashlee’s consultant is. Most people my age , late 50’s, were working with computers in the mid 1980’s onwards. I know my late 80’s mother doesn’t use her’s for much more than FaceBook birthday or similar greetings.
Either Ashlee hasn’t trained her properly, or InTouch isn’t very user friendly or intuitive for the average user.
“Older consultant” … I’m over 70 and have been using computers since the 1970s.” More likely that Ashlee didn’t explain InTouch to the consultant, and expected her to “figure it out” on her own.
well, some-one had to teach us young whipper-snappers what to do!