February 28, 2010 09:41 AM UTC

Mary Kay cosmetics - it's getting ugly

• 0 Comments
• by: DavidThi808

Apparently every legislator on the Judiciary Committee got over 600 personally written emails today – that all happened to be identical. Boy what are the odds.

Ok ladies, here’s a bit of advice. If you are trying to lobby legislators – don’t be a jerk. Yes having them get 600 emails shows that there are a lot of you. You’re also eating up hours of their evening for no real purpose. Send a single email signed by 600 people. Send 10 distinct emails each signed by 60 people.

Second, this email is lame. This may surprise you but any legislation like this gets everyone it affects claiming it’s the end of civilization as we know it. You need to discuss this on the merits. Clear specific credible arguments.

Lets take a look at the letter:

House Bill 1248 would essentially BAN several hundred Mary Kay products currently sold by us Mary Kay independent sales force members in Colorado. House Bill 1248 would ban many substances that are not banned by any other state or country.

Really? Then name the specific substances. This is a bogus claim because one of the legitimate complaints against the bill is it is unclear what will be banned.

In turn, thousands of Colorado women would lose their Mary Kay businesses in the state. Now more than ever, during these tough economic times, the Mary Kay income-earning opportunity needs to be maintained and nurtured in Colorado and all the states.

If this passes women will stop wearing makeup? I don’t think so. The logical conclusion of this paragraph is that Mary Kay sells carcinogenic makeup while other sell safe makeup. If you’re in the business of giving people cancer, then you’re going to have a hard sell that we want to keep you selling.

HB 1248 is an unnecessary piece of legislation that is being proposed during an already challenging economic climate. If passed, this bill would put thousands of Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultants` businesses, and Colorado jobs related to the personal care industry, in jeopardy.

What I think you are saying here is that when the economy is tough, that is not the time to outlaw the sale of goods that might be causing cancer. Somehow, and I might be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think that argument is a winner.

What’s really dumb about your approach is that a quick search of the blogosphere does show some very credible concerns about the bill. The bill is not clear, from what my cursory search found, as to how the state will determine what is not allowed, what is adequate testing, etc.

Having seen the same lack of detail leading to great uncertainty in the case of the software tax, it would not surprise me if this bill, upon passage, leaves everyone wondering what exactly it means.

Anyways, if you want some free advice, first apologize for mail bombing the committee members. Second, list out the specific items you think need to be clarified in the bill. Not kill it, improve it.

Because you’re going to have a hard time selling the idea that a little bit of cancer is a small price to pay to keep you guys supplied in pink Cadillacs.