| Comment Number: | 522418-02067 |
| Received: | 6/13/2006 11:12:46 PM |
| Organization: | Independent Beauty Consultant, Mary Kay Cosmetics |
| Commenter: | Ellen Ashcraft |
| State: | NM |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
June 13, 2006 Dear FTC: I understand you are seeking public response to the proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993. As proposed, I think it would negatively impact my business as a Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultant in a serious way. I understand that the FTC seeks to protect the public from businesses that are presented in an unfair or deceptive way. However, some sections in the proposed rule will severely impede my business in Mary Kay, which has an outstanding reputation. I find the seven-day waiting period particularly troublesome. Mary Kay’s starter kit only costs $100 plus tax and shipping. Any inventory and starter kits one purchases in the previous year is backed by a 90% buy-back guarantee—practically risk-free! I don’t quite understand the need to “protect” the public from such an opportunity. The waiting period puts a negative light on what has been for me, and thousands of others, a wonderful business opportunity. Why should women wait when they've made a decision and are ready to get to work and make better lives for themselves and their families? Also, this waiting period would burden me with much more paperwork, keeping detailed records and sending in reports to Mary Kay headquarters. Frankly, I don’t need the hassle, as my business grows when I spend my time with people, not paper. As for the portion of the proposed rule that calls for the release of information about misrepresentation lawsuits and such, please consider this. In a society as litigation-prone as ours, lawsuits are made all the time. It seems I shouldn’t have to disclose these unless Mary Kay is found guilty. Again, doing so puts a shadow over my business because of the appearance of unsound practices, even when Mary Kay is innocent. Regarding giving references for at least 10 prior purchasers in proximity to the prospective purchaser: I’m happy to give references, but surely would not want to give personal information to strangers. Identity theft is a very real concern. In order to get the list of the 10 prior purchasers, I will need to send the address of the prospective purchaser to Mary Kay headquarters and then wait for the list. Plus, I believe I would think twice if I were considering any direct selling business knowing that my information might be given to potential future buyers. I have been a Mary Kay consultant for going on 16 years. Originally, I became a consultant because I needed work that would pay me for my master’s degree, wanted flexible hours and positive personal growth. Now, the extra income from my business provides my family with tax deductions, a better quality of life, and increased ability to give to charities. Please do not make this opportunity harder for women like me. In today’s job market, the only real security is in working for one’s self. Thank you for the work you do to protect consumers, but please reconsider the new rule as currently written. I’m sure there are other ways the FTC can achieve its goals without putting my business at such a disadvantage. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ellen K. Ashcraft