As usual, Pink Truth is fighting fire with fire. What this means is that they are disparaging Mary Kay's alleged misrepresentations in recruiting literature with their own literary misrepresentations.
Reading the training literature provided here, I definitely see some red flags being presented by Mary Kay here. Starting with the generic classification of entrepreneurs and carrying through all the points of the article. This is a frightening way to present Mary Kay as there really is nothing backing up the claims being made. What kind of entrepreneurs are we talking about here? What trainings typically cost that much money? The assumptions used and drawn are vague and tenuous and the responding "Mary Kay is different because..." is also questionable.
Pink Truth would have done well here to just point out these inconsistencies and leave it at that. Instead, Tracy chooses to use this opportunity to flaunt all of her personal misrepresentations about Mary Kay to make them look like a stupid yet genius evil empire.
In Mary Kay's defense, there are certainly some benefits to starting a Mary Kay opportunity compared to other start-up ideas. Many of these are obvious to anyone giving it even just a cursory glance. However, this particular article takes liberties that are unnecessary and counterproductive.
In Pink Truth's defense, the practices that are highlighted by this article need to be called out. Mary Kay is making the prospect of entrepreneurship out to be insurmountable and contrasting it with a unrealistically inexpensive and easy path to success in Mary Kay. Pink Truth just adds to the problem by contrasting this with the opposite. They would have you believe that being a go-it-alone entrepreneur is easy and a nearly guaranteed success while Mary Kay is a guaranteed failure. Neither of these assertions are any more true that the ones that Mary Kay makes.
We'll call this Fail(x2) Mary Kay fail, Pink Truth fail. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment