You Want Pink Cosmetics Leaves Consultant with No Product & NSF Check!
Written by L J on September 18, 2008 – 3:12 pm -Warning: You may want to think twice before using Mary Kay reseller You Want Pink Cosmetics.
I received this note from a former consultant who sold her excess inventory to them. Here is what she wrote:
I got a quote from them to liquidate some small inventory a couple of months ago… After sending them the products in good faith, they drastically reduced my quote, and held onto my products for a month with no contact. They finally, contacted me, said they had been “busy”, and sent me a check for the reduced amount (I didn’t get back the products they “rejected”).
The check bounced and my bank charged me an NSF fee.
I asked this woman to send me some verification of this so I could be sure of her story.
You will see below the verification letter that her bank provided her with (I have deleted the name & info of the bank for obvious reasons) :
One of the things that makes PinkLighthouse a great place is the great, reliable group of resellers we have here. We can no longer recommend that you do business with You Want Pink Cosmetics.
Tags: excess inventory, Inventory, Mary Kay, Mary Kay resellers, resellers, you want pink cosmetics
Posted in Articles & Commentary |
Colleen on 
Tam on 
Sassy_C on
September 18th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Wow, what a bummer! I was just going to liquidate some items to Touch Of Pink Cosmetics, now I am not so sure. Does anyone have any experience with them? Let me know if I am about to make a big mistake! Thanks
September 18th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I just used Goldflowerinc & was totally pleased.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Goldflowerinc is great.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Touch of Pink is highly reputable and professional, in my experience.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I’ve heard varying things about Touch of Pink Cosmetics. I would proceed with caution, though, given their being sued by Mary Kay.
Just want to clarify that this article is about YOU WANT PINK COSMETICS.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:21 am
There are always 2 sides of any story!!!
The purpose of this message is to clear up any perceived misunderstanding about doing business with You Want Pink Cosmetics.
Recently, a customer filed a complaint concerning 2 things: 1) a NSF charged by the bank and 2) no return of rejected products.
(Point #1 — NSF charged by the bank)
We were unaware this person was charged a return check fee. We were never contacted or provided with an opportunity to rectify the situation. Had we been properly contacted about this, we would have definitely covered the $10 return check fee. Since this situation has been brought to our attention through your blog (and not by offended party), we were able to identify the offended and have taken appropriate steps to provide proper reimbursement of the $10 return check fee.
(Point #2 – No return of rejected products)
Prior to shipping on July 16 of 2008, the offended was provided with the following information:
(1) We have had a few problems with some returns due to the age of the
products. Therefore, we have determined that we will need to ephasize the codes to our potential liquidators. The acceptable codes for You Want Pink Cosmetics are as follows: H=2005, K=2006, M=2007 and R=2008.
These codes can be found on the back crimp or bottom of your products.
(2) We DO NOT ACCEPT expired products! If there is an expiration date
listed on the product and it is clearly passed or just at the timeframe, please do not send.
Clearly, this liquidator did not check to ensure their products met our requested codes before sending. Once the products were received, we responded on July 22, 2008 via email that 2/3 of the products received were expired. The product quote was adjusted accordingly and the decision was left to the offended concerning what should be done with the expired products: discard of them or return the products via mail? Finally, on August 15 (nearly a month later) the offended made a decision on what to do with the expired products. They responded with the following quote: “You can throw them out…”
In closing we were surprised to be removed from Pink Lighthouse after only hearing one side of the story. In the future, we hope that the “complete” story is research before action is taken.
Since our company’s reputation was challenged, we felt a need to tell our side of the story. As we all know, every story has 2 sides. Thanks again for the previous posting on Pink Lighthouse.
October 16th, 2008 at 8:55 am
YWPC…As to your points:
1. How can you not know that your check bounced? To my knowledge, when you bounce a check, the check comes back to you with a notice from the bank. Doesn’t make sense to me.
2. I don’t expect any liquidator on my site to accept products that are against their set terms. (By the way…YOU’RE the liquidator, not the consultant, as you have referred to her. )
I’m concerned about how this was handled though. There’s a difference between EXPIRED and DATED. There are only a few products in the Mary Kay line that have true expiration dates. The others simply have a date code indicating when they were manufactured. Items with older date codes can still be good products and easily sold on eBay, therefore they have a value.
The consultant claims you took a good while to respond to her. I’m concerned about the poor communication.
As to your removal from Pink Lighthouse…The letter that the consultant received confirming that she received a bad check from you was enough for me to yank you. But other items added to this decision:
1. One of my requirements of liquidators is that they are an active member of the PL community. They must register on the forum and post and participate. I told you this when you first requested a listing in March 2008.
You contacted me again in June 2008 to ask me to update your listing and in checking your account on the forum, I noticed that you had never been there nor posted since registering. I told you then that you were in jeopardy of being removed if you didn’t participate. You then posted an introductory post.
You haven’t been on the forum since June 2nd.
Which means:
2. I’m providing you with a service and business, yet you choose not to meet my criteria for being listed. One of the points of being on the forum is to build rapport and trust with the people there. You know…the consultants who might want to do business with you?
As you do business with people there, they have the opportunity to rate you, and you them. This provides valuable information to others and HELPS BUILD YOUR BUSINESS. Ask the other active and successful liquidators there.
PLUS my forum is a resource for product! That’s why you want to be there.
3. Liquidator listings on Pink Lighthouse are at MY discretion. I do NOT endorse any of the liquidators on the site, but I do take these listings seriously. They are a valuable resource and since people know that the integrity of the site is high, they expect the information and resources supplied to be tip top too. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
So if there is the slightest doubt in my mind about a liquidator listed on the site, their listing is removed. And writing a bad check is a pretty big one in my book that I don’t want to take a chance on. Even with the “complete story” as you put it. It simply shouldn’t happen.
4. I wrote this post on 18 September. You’re just now showing up to respond? Hmmm…
See Item 1.
Your company’s reputation was not challenged; I was simply reporting something that I had documentation for. Mistakes happen, but the bad check just gave me a bad feeling. I didn’t want others to suffer the same fate and I had NO idea whether this was an “oops” or a pattern developing with a business that is failing. I still say that any business that bounces a check has problems. Just shouldn’t happen. It’s a big red flag to me.
You could have contacted me as soon as you found out. If you were active here, as you should be, you would have been able to address this sooner.