# People Will Disappoint You, But Mary Kay Numbers Never Lie

Another brilliant piece by a Mary Kay nsd. If you’re a director or you want to be a director, check out how pathetic the numbers are in Mary Kay. Wonder why? Because in endless chain recruiting schemes (called pyramid schemes by some, with that characterization denied by Mary Kay), almost everyone fails. It’s just plain math. There are too many people at the bottom of the pyramid for any great number of them to be successful.

1. 1/3 of your consultants will order an average of \$400; 1/3 are thinking about it; 1/3 are on the way out
2. Your unit should recruit a minimum of its size (exclusive of personal recruits)
3. Company statistics indicate a new recruit will place an initial order of \$1,000
5. 1% of people are natural leaders; 2% are learned leaders; 97% are followers (it’s okay to beg a follower, however, followers seldom become directors)
6. 3% of your unit is leaders. Calculate 3% of your unit size. Unit of 30 has less than one leader, a unit of 50 has 1.5 leaders and a unit of 100 has 3 leaders.
7. A consultant will recruit 1 out of 5. A director will recruit 1 out of 3. There is one prospective recruit at every class. Using these figures you can always tell a consultant how many classes she is away from her goal. For ex. Red Jacket she needs 15 classes. Car 60 classes.
8. With whom do you spend your time? 45% of your time should be spent with your new people. 45% of your time should be spent with key people. 10% of your time should be spent with those on their way out.

Real businesses concentrate on growing an end-user customer base. Depending on the product or service, that’s dozens or hundreds of end-user customers per sales rep.

Mary Kay and other MLMs concentrate on growing recruits. In any MLM, the new recruits are the real customers. “Company statistics indicate a new recruit will place an initial order of \$1,000.” End-user customers are simply a hunting ground for finding new recruits.

2. pinkvictim

Let’s break it down:

1. That first 1/3 is verifiable through company statistics; how on earth do they know what the other 2/3 are thinking? Completely unverifiable.

2. Admission that there is nearly a 100% churn rate.

3. This is verifiable through company statistics.

4. Possibly verified through company statistics, more likely just pulled out of thin air.

5. Completely unverifiable. Did you know that 43% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

6. Completely unverifiable. Baffle them with bulls**t.

7. Completely unverifiable. Did I tell you that the check is in the mail?

8. Completely unquantifiable, ergo unverifiable. Why spend any time with “those on the way out”? They’re lazy losers who aren’t buying enough product.

3. BestDecision

2/3 of our units never came to weekly meetings or participated in anything we ever planned. That is a real truth, yet many Directors love boasting about their meeting attendance by pretending Adoptees count towards their success. NSD Kristin Sharpe is a perfect example of someone with huge attendance, yet it’s because she has her Area Directors’ units in attendance and because she has a lot of Adoptees coming. If you take a look at unit newsletters, you see the clear truth–the same people coming, heavy attrition, and the same stagnant ordering patterns.

I’m so glad I don’t give up my weeknights for that small 1/3 anymore. No matter your unit size, working for just 1/3 of all those people is mentally and emotionally frustrating.

1. pinkpeace

This! I remember planning unit meetings with all kinds of training and demos – and having one person show up. An adoptee.

And I love the stat of needing x amount of classes for a particular goal. Do you remember how crazy hard it was getting two or three classes on the books as a director? If I had to tell a consultant she was going to need 60 classes for a car, she would have quit on the spot.

4. Lazy Gardens

OK, let’s do the numbers (facts from Mary Kay website)

Mary Kay Inc.’s global wholesale sales are \$4 BILLION DOLLARS. Sounds impressive, doesn’t it.

But, unfortunately, there are 3.5 million Independent Beauty Consultants in the world.

\$4,000,000,000 / 3,500,000 = \$1,143

That means that each consultant’s share of the sales is \$1,143 per year. If any IBC sells more, some IBC is selling less, because that number doesn’t stretch.

1. Reputo

So looking at points 2 and 3 above, this would mean that essentially all of the sales is from new consultants initial order

2. pinkvictim

Pointed this out to my wife… it was as if I had never said it. The fog is thick.

5. Cindylu

Yes the numbers lie. They lie about ruined marriages, ruined families and the many in debt. I wonder how many have suffered break downs due to the frustration of believing Directors and NSD’s who fabricate the financial possibilities. Here’s to 2017 where thousands quit this abusive pyramid scheme.

6. pinkvictim

Here’s another one I’ve seen pointed out:

By MKorps own account, there have been a somewhat steady 600K – 700K US consultants over the last decade or so. MK provided the FTC with info stating they sign up an average 40K new IBC’s every month. 40K x 12 months = 480K new IBC’s every year, while total levels remain the same means a burn rate of around 480K per year.

Over the last decade, between 4 and 5 million women have churned through MK, each spending an average of \$1000 on an initial order. Let’s just say that the average consultant sticks around for 6 months, thus placing at least a second order of \$225 to stay active. That’s \$1225 per churned sign-up.

\$1,225 x 480K = \$588,000,000/year on churned IBC’s.

15% of their entire global revenue comes from anticipated failure of US consultants alone.

(Thanks, Tracy!)