| Comment Number: | 522418-12226 |
| Received: | 7/17/2006 7:19:02 PM |
| Organization: | Mary Kay - Independent Beauty Consultant |
| Commenter: | Angela Nardiello |
| State: | CA |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
This series of comments is in regards to the Business Opportunity Rule R511993. I am very concerned that as an independent representative of Mary Kay Cosmetics, my ability to conduct business will be greatly diminished if not eliminated by the proprosed rule. I have been with Mary Kay Cosmetics as an Independent Beauty Consultant for just over two years. I am a single mother of three children and needed a flexible type of income earning vehicle so that I can properly care for my children and also earn money. Mary Kay Cosmetics is one of the most upstanding companies in the world and I am very proud to represent it. The other companies that I have represented are Avon Products and Usana Health Sciences. All of these companies are providing the consumer with products second to none, and they also provide a legitimate means of selling directly to the consumer. I believe that having the opportunity to sign up to sell for companies such as these is freedom and the American dream in it's greatest hour. I strongly oppose the institution of a seven day waiting period for the enrollment of new consultants. All companies that are members of the Direct Selling Association allow consultants who change their mind a 90% buyback of unused product and their starter kit within twelve months. That alone is a more than fair way to handle someone who feels that they no longer wish to represent a company. Most companies have extremely reasonable prices for the start up kit. Mary Kay charges $100 to start a business. I don't feel that a cooling off period is warrented for this level of financial committment. People purchase cars and MP3 players every day that cost much more than the price of a starter kit and there is no waiting period for these. I also oppose the litigation disclosure section of the proposed rule. People sue companies for just about any reason these days. Why would a disclosure of all lawsuits, whether the company is found innocent or guilty do anything but potentially scare away business for a direct seller? Finally, the proposed rule requires disclosure of a minimum of 10 prior purchasers nearest the prospective buyer. I know I wouldn't want my personal information to be disclosed all around town. In the age of rampant identity theft, I feel that we need to help protect the privacy and personal rights of customers and fellow consultants, not disclose it. I also feel that only the representatives of the companies doing business the right way in the first place, will be the ones following any disclosure rules. People that follow deceptive business practices will not be stopped by this rule. Only the honest people that are conducting proper business will be affected. Mary Kay's sales for last year topped 2 billion dollars. Scores of other reputable companies contribute several billions of dollars in sales to the economy. It is my sincere hope that this proposed rule be rescinded in order to protect the good people who make a legitimate living through Direct Sales. The Direct Selling Association would be very instrumental in helping to construct some appropriate legislation in order to protect consumers from deceptive business practices. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Angela Nardiello Mary Kay Cosmetics Independent Beauty Consultant