Hit Job on Mary Kay
I wanted to take a trip down memory lane. Ten years ago, a damning article was written about Mary Kay in Harper’s magazine called The Pink Pyramid Scheme. If you’ve never read it, you should. Did it make an impact on Mary Kay? I’m not sure. MK’s numbers have been dropping for years, but it’s unclear what the cause is.
One Mary Kay defender was upset by the article, and made this comment on the Facebook business page of the author, Virginia Sole-Smith. Tell me what you think of what she has to say in the comments below.
I can’t help but feel that you have used your platform to do a hit job on Mary Kay to gain attention for yourself. It is the lowest form of sexism to marginalize women by making them look stupid for taking a chance on themselves by trying something new and minimizing the impact of Mary Kay and the wonderful things it has done for so many. I have written the following letter to Harper’s:
Although I am appreciative that the experience that Virginia Sole-Smith had as an Independent Beauty Consultant with Mary Kay was a disappointing one, her article “The Pink Pyramid” went a little overboard in its caustic analysis of the Mary Kay business. I have made a good living doing Mary Kay for the past 28 years. Our business is not for everyone, but I have always believed that the women (and men) who decide to take the plunge and start a Mary Kay business are always a courageous bunch and deserve to feel good about themselves regardless of the outcome of their efforts.
What her article lacked was the proper context. Becoming a Mary Kay consultant is just like any entrepreneurial business. 90% of all businesses started in the U.S. fail within their first year. Most businesses started require some kind of cash outlay, and the main reason most fail is undercapitalization. The amount of cash needed (but not required as the author pointed out) to fully capitalize the Mary Kay business is a very small amount compared to the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions that other small businesses need to have a decent startup. And unlike almost every other business out there, if a Mary Kay consultant purchases some inventory, and then they decide that the business is not for them, they have up to a year to send all of the inventory purchased back to Mary Kay Inc., and the company will buy back the product for 90% of what was paid for it. One would be hard pressed to find any other startup business with that kind of safety net. This fact was not mentioned in Sole-Smith’s article.
My other concern about the article is the way that it criticized women in the most sexist of stereotypes, slamming the women in Mary Kay for the way they dressed, and playing on the cultural meme that women are less intelligent, just two of many examples of subliminal and more obvious sexist slams that weaken the premise of this article. We are a country where women have not progressed nearly as much as people think. The U.S. ranks #78 in the world in female representation in government (Interparliamentary Union stat), only 2.8% of the Fortune 1000 companies are headed by women, and women still make only 77 cents on the man’s dollar. There are many reasons for this state of affairs, but one of the major ones is that we haven’t as a nation resolved the work/family issues that plague working women. There is renewed talk these days of whether women can have it all and the Mary Kay business is one of the few opportunities that comes closest to allowing women to have their cake and eat it too. I know because that is the life I have lead for the past 28 years raising my family on my own terms and making a wonderful income while doing so.
Ms. Sole-Smith, you should have also taken the time to speak to more of the people who have been successful in this business and given them more attribution in your piece. By not doing so, your piece is nothing more than a saga of sour grapes.
Visit the
“…if a Mary Kay consultant purchases some inventory, and then they decide that the business is not for them, they have up to a year to send all of the inventory purchased back to Mary Kay Inc., and the company will buy back the product for 90% of what was paid for it.”
Once again, only because Texas law requires it, not out of any kindness on MK’S part. Not to mention they make you jump through hoops to do it – our new friends Enddays and Intrigue can tell you all about that.
Oh, and your director will move heaven and earth to stop you to prevent a commission chargeback.
Plus you are barred from ever selling MK again; it’s not like you can just return products that aren’t selling to free up space and money for stuff that is.
In addition to TX law…
According to the MK website, it is a member of the Direct Selling Association. The DSA requires members to honor the 90% buyback of “marketable inventory and sales aids purchased with the past 12 months if the direct seller decides to leave the business.”
As you said, not out of the goodness of its heart.
Interesting, because MK doesn’t take back section 2 items, the sales aids.
Yeah, isn’t THAT interesting?
Anyway…”sales aids”…LOL
Now that I’m at a proper keyboard… ::cracks knuckles::
Leaving aside my VERY strong doubts that she’s made a fan-goddamn-tastic living off of MK for the past 28 years (tax returns or GTFO) attacking the article as sexist is nothing but ridiculous.
“It is the lowest form of sexism to marginalize women by making them look stupid for taking a chance on themselves by trying something new and minimizing the impact of Mary Kay and the wonderful things it has done for so many…”
Telling the truth, supported by MK’s own materials, and sharing one’s own personal experiences, aren’t sexist. What IS sexist is recruitment lines like “think of how proud of you your husband will be!!!” What IS sexist is assuming that all women are just dying to hold/go to parties, that all women love makeup and “girly” stuff, and assuming that all women want the trappings of wealth: fake diamonds, pink Cadillacs, bogus designer purses.
Oh, I’m just getting started. Other sexist things I’ve seen from MK:
– recruitment guides telling people to avoid single moms, women on public assistance, women who don’t have cars or homes of their own. Married middle to upper class WASPs only, please. We have an image to maintain.
– “No Sex, No Supper June”. After all, women are just there to cook and then spread ’em for their man.
– Bullmuffins like the “husband unawareness plan”. All a woman’s financial decisions are subject to male approval, even when she’s using her own money, don’tchaknow.
– Outdated fashion requirements, including pantyhose, suits circa 2000, heels, full faces of makeup. Clinging to one woman’s outdated notion of femininity despite most workplaces having gone casual and makeup trends being towards natural looks and away from pancake makeup.
– Insulting womens’ intelligence by making them color in worksheets too childish for a kindergardener, disguising exhortations to spend themselves broke as nonsense like “beauty camp”, using cutesy girly talk in communications, trying to motivate women to spend thousands of dollars by dangling something cheap and shiny in front of them.
Trying something new is good. The thing is, when you try something new, you might not like it, or you might fail. Out in the real world, you don’t have to, say, eat sushi more than once if it’s not for you. No one will call you a failure. If you play pickleball and suck at it and decide to quit, no one’s going to blackball you on social media and spread nasty rumors about you. Tastes vary; failure is either what motivates you to try harder or quit wasting your time on something you don’t enjoy.
Thing is, you’re not allowed to dislike Mary Kay or be a failure because negativity is forbidden and image rules all. In the process, honesty and compassion are swallowed whole because if you support a “loser” or “quitter” you’re automatically one of the bad guys, too. Honest emotions like anger and frustration are squelched and internalized, and that’s really unhealthy both physically and mentally.
What it does is forces the women involved in it to hide their genuine selves, conform to the crowd, toe the party line, be something they’re not. And that’s the most sexist thing in the world – instead of letting women be individuals in all their glorious variety, MK turns them into a simpering pink Borg.
Sexism yourself.
Oh, I’m just getting started. Other sexist things I’ve seen from MK:
– recruitment guides telling people to avoid single moms, women on public assistance, women who don’t have cars or homes of their own. Married middle to upper class WASPs only, please. We have an image to maintain.
I’ve mentioned before that I know several “successful” MLMers. Middle-aged middle-class with a paid off house, two cars, often a cottage at the lake, Ski-Doos and Sea-Doos, ATVs, children often graduated from university.
What they fail to mention is the middle management to higher management jobs that they and/or their husbands have been cultivating for 25-30-35 years. I know of at least one who was warned by the HR where she worked about using company resources to “run her independent entrepreneurial business”. Another was warned about trying to recruit her husband’s subordinates into her down-lines.
But, they constantly brag about how “they did it on their own” while trying to recruit me and opening up the already saturated Quebec market.
I can’t help but feel that you have used your platform to do a hit job on Mary Kay to gain attention for yourself.
News just in….Investigative Journalist does her job!!!!
It is the lowest form of sexism to marginalize women by making them look stupid for taking a chance on themselves by trying something new and minimizing the impact of Mary Kay and the wonderful things it has done for so many.
Ah yes!! Doing something new just like the how many thousands of women who have preceded them on this fruitless journey.
Lowest from of sexism?? I don’t think so, that is Mary Kay Wagner Rogers Eckman Weaver Louis Miller Hallenbeck Ash’s posthumous control over women’s clothing and behaviour.
I have written the following letter to Harper’s:
Because it’s all about ME, gosh darnit!
Although I am appreciative that the experience that Virginia Sole-Smith had as an Independent Beauty Consultant with Mary Kay was a disappointing one,
Just like 99% of people who join Mary Kay then.
her article “The Pink Pyramid” went a little overboard in its caustic analysis of the Mary Kay business.
It said thing that scared me. Or made me question the unquestionable.
I have made a good living doing Mary Kay for the past 28 years.
I notice that our author fails to prove that she has indeed made “a good living”.
Our business is not for everyone,
A quick look at this weeks posts on the message board shows that directors are falling over themselves offering “our business” to all and sundry to make up their yearly quotas. It may not be “for everyone” but it’s not being vetted to prove that every-one can in fact “make a good living”.
but I have always believed that the women (and men) who decide to take the plunge and start a Mary Kay business are always a courageous bunch and deserve to feel good about themselves regardless of the outcome of their efforts.
Losing money, possibly their marriages and homes is the new Good Outcome??
What her article lacked was the proper context.
By “proper context” I guess our dear gentle author is referring to pink-washing the truth.
Becoming a Mary Kay consultant is just like any entrepreneurial business.
No, it isn’t! We have discussed this ad nauseum , MLMs are not an entrepreneurial business.
90% of all businesses started in the U.S. fail within their first year. Most businesses started require some kind of cash outlay, and the main reason most fail is undercapitalization.
There is some truth in this.
The amount of cash needed (but not required as the author pointed out) to fully capitalize the Mary Kay business is a very small amount compared to the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions that other small businesses need to have a decent startup (sic).
It might not be required to buy large inventory packages but each dollar spent by the new beauty consultant is another dollar closer to the director’s quota for that month or quarter or car. Plus we all know that the starter package is most likely to be the biggest order made by the IBC so we need to strike while optimism is high and get every dollar we can out of the newbie.
And unlike almost every other business out there, if a Mary Kay consultant purchases some inventory, and then they decide that the business is not for them, they have up to a year to send all of the inventory purchased back to Mary Kay Inc., and the company will buy back the product for 90% of what was paid for it.
As Popinki pointed out, that’s the law not a super generous offer from Mary Kay Corp.
One would be hard pressed to find any other startup (sic) business with that kind of safety net. This fact was not mentioned in Sole-Smith’s article.
Most MLMs offer similar buy back guarantees but they make it hard to actually do so. As for products older than a year from purchase, Mary Kay contract forbids (general) you from selling on eBay, Amazon or anywhere else. If I had a start-up business that failed, I could sell any residual inventory how I liked and not worry if my SD drove past my garage sale and saw my products out for sale .
My other concern about the article is the way that it criticized women in the most sexist of stereotypes, slamming the women in Mary Kay for the way they dressed, and playing on the cultural meme that women are less intelligent,
Mary Kay directors are the ones who enforce the dress code, as seen in almost every discussion on Seminar where IBCs are told to travel in their distinctive suits with hose and heels.
just two of many examples of subliminal and more obvious sexist slams that weaken the premise of this article.
And yet, you could not quote anything in defense of this accusation.
We are a country where women have not progressed nearly as much as people think. The U.S. ranks #78 in the world in female representation in government (Interparliamentary Union stat), only 2.8% of the Fortune 1000 companies are headed by women, and women still make only 77 cents on the man’s dollar.
That’s just white women, though, women of colour earn even less.
There are many reasons for this state of affairs, but one of the major ones is that we haven’t as a nation resolved the work/family issues that plague working women.
This is true, there still needs to be a cultural shift towards making working women’s, and men’s, work/family balance easier.
There is renewed talk these days of whether women can have it all and the Mary Kay business is one of the few opportunities that comes closest to allowing women to have their cake and eat it too.
For the vast majority of women, Mary Kay’s fauxoptunity doesn’t allow that.
I know because that is the life I have lead for the past 28 years raising my family on my own terms and making a wonderful income while doing so.
If you are actually making money on “your own terms”, then you are one of the two percent who earns more than $20, 000. Mary Kay’s own figures show this.
https://www.marykay.ca/-/media/images/mk/united-states/canada/esuite/footer/earnings-representation-bilingual-0223.pdf
Ms. Sole-Smith, you should have also taken the time to speak to more of the people who have been successful in this business and given them more attribution in your piece. By not doing so, your piece is nothing more than a saga of sour grapes.
Ms. Sole-Smith was writing about what her experience was, not catering to the propaganda put forth by the company. That’s the difference, not sour grapes.
Some things never change. All the same arguments we still see repeated today.