[Inside the Pink Pyramid] But Of Course, Our Products End Up With the Retail Consumer

When I spoke with Laura Beitler, Mary Kay’s Vice President of Compliance, on NPR’s On Point on Monday, she was quick to emphasize that “absolutely, the majority of our products end up with the end consumer.” But when we pressed her, she also had to admit: “We can’t and don’t track retail sales.” 

How can both those things be true? 

To avoid falling into the Federal Trade Commission’s official definition of a pyramid scheme, it’s very important for Mary Kay — and all multi-level marketing companies — to insist that their primary goal is getting their products out to retail consumers. But to avoid being exposed as a business where the vast majority of the sales force is losing money, all of these companies have to claim that they have no idea what those end retail consumers are spending.

This is why, when my editors and I tried to figure out exactly how much Mary Kay consultants are earning from retail sales alone, we got so stumped. All Mary Kay knows is that they earned $3 billion from wholesale orders placed by their own workforce last year. And that paints a pretty bleak picture even if you assume that every consultant can sell every last product she buys wholesale at the full retail price. Douglas Brooks did the math on Monday’s show: Mary Kay’s global sales force is 2.4 million strong (and growing!). If all those Mary Kay ladies earned $3 billion in commissions from their $3 billion wholesale investment… it works out to $1250 per consultant per year.

Or $104.16 per month. 

Of course averages are a bit unfair — some consultants buy and sell way more product than others. So in reality, some Mary Kay ladies (namely, the National Sales Directors) are earning far more than that because they get paid a commission every time someone in their personal sales unit places a wholesale order. And many people on the lower levels of the pyramid are losing tons of money every time they place a $200 wholesale order to ultimately sell a few tubes of lipstick or a couple of bottles of face cleanser. (For more details on how that works around Mary Kay’s “no inventory required” promise, see yesterday’s post.)

But back to the question of the retail market. How can Mary Kay be so sure that “the majority” of their products end up with retail consumers? Beitler’s evidence is that the company “has been named as a top beauty brand,” and gets plenty of “beauty editor mentions in magazines.” What she may not have realized is that I come from women’s magazines, so I can tell you how products get onto beauty pages — and it has precisely nothing to do with the product’s retail sales. In fact, I was discussing this story with a beauty editor friend last weekend, and she told me how Mary Kay put on a fancypants press event for a new product launch and even sent car service for all of the editors to ensure people would show. (To be clear: My friend is way too scrupulous a journalist to plug a product just because she got car service. But for beauty publicists, hope springs eternal.)

Magazine mentions and accolades don’t prove retail sales. Retail sales data would do that. But the direct sales industry is trying a different approach, says Douglas Brooks: They want to pass legislation in every state that re-classifies wholesale sales between the company and its distributors as “retail.” Now, wouldn’t that just solve everything?

[Image: Avon Cosmetics Ad, 1957 posted to Flickr Creative Commons by alsis35. As in, yet another direct sales cosmetics brand that tries to claim they're all about the retail consumer.]


Filed under Beauty Labor, Career Opportunities, Customer Cult, Makeup, Mary Kay

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,



  1. Posted July 25, 2012 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    I listened to your radio show on NPR online, but have been unable to read the content on Harpers.

    I loved hearing what you had to say about Mary Kay and to hear from other people how bad an experience it was.

    I have recently been invited to a string of MLM parties here (Australia) and the women hosting them are all generally in their early 30s and a little younger. They have had kids and are now worrying about their partners income. Typically these women are in households with investment properties that have overextended themselves financially, so they have to do what they can to bring in more money. Yes, generalisation but these are the people I know.

    I see them desperately trying Tuppaware, Mary Kay, Avon, Enjo, Herbalife and now even some more obscure brands I have never heard of such Market America and Usana (I did try their peanut butter bar and it was nice, but I still didn’t buy a box!).

    I don’t understand how there can be so much negative information online about these brands but people still buy into them? I understand Tuppaware is a very good product (yes I have inherited some of their fridge collection and it is great) but some of these other products are so obscure!

    I get sad for my friends who are hosting the parties, since I accept to come along and try to drag another friend or two along if I can, but I never buy anything. I feel awful saying no, I don’t want any .

    I often wonder if they have the same laws in Australia protecting these people and if they have the opportunity to get their money back?

    • Posted July 26, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      Hi Rebecca,

      Thanks for listening! I don’t know what the regulation situation is in Australia. Here in the USA, though, it’s appallingly lax — MLMs don’t have to disclose income estimates, competition data, or much else to new recruits. So they can focus on making their pitch as compelling as possible and distract people from asking the real questions (like “how does anybody make money at this?”). I think right now, when so many people are desperate for a better way to make a living, that pitch can be incredibly attractive. And it is very sad, on so many levels.

    • Deflated Pink Bubble
      Posted July 26, 2012 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

      Mary Kay is not doing something wonderful by offering that 90% buy back program. They were founded and are headquartered in Dallas, Texas and by Texas State Law they are required to do that. Trust me, the way that company works on every other level, there is no way they would offer that if they didn’t have to.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


    The Eating Insinct: Food Culture, Body Image, and Guilt in America by Virginia Sole Smith

    Pre-order now!