Mean Girls in LuLaRoe and perpetuating that syndrome

LuLaRoe is breeding mean girls. By the hundreds.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen this mean girl syndrome first hand. Whether it’s retailers telling customers that they are too fat for a certain size clothing or harassing women that have no choice but to go out of business by running sale, these women are ruthless. But let’s take this point by point.

LuLaRoe retailers are trying to defend the “hole” issue that has spawned a lawsuit but insinuating that women are too fat to wear the size leggings that they have purchased. However, when women are buying a size that fits them in any other leggings and does not fit in LuLaRoe leggings, that in and of itself shows that there is an issue with sizing on LuLaRoe’s products. Based on the style, I could wear between a large and a 3X. Inconsistent much? I was a solid TC in leggings. I’ve noticed that my darker TC tend to run smaller than the lighter colored TC. I’ve also encountered the “baggy ankle” syndrome.
LuLaRoe’s legging quality started going downhill in the fall of last year. We started getting customer returns due to pinholes or all out blow out in the leggings. We were told by LuLaRoe home office that their “damage” percentage compared to the rest of the clothing line was between 1-2%. HOWEVER, what they weren’t telling us was the percentage of leggings COMPARED to just the category of leggings themselves. By my hypothetical calculations, that percentage was more along the lines of 10-20%.  The fashion industry uses an AQL (acceptable quality level) charting process to ascertain what percentage of defective products are acceptable for them.
The highest acceptable industry standard that I’ve found is 6.5% of the total garments manufactured. So out of 100 leggings, no more than 6.5 should be defective.

When I asked uplines about the percentage of legging defects compared to just leggings, of course those comments got deleted. That wasn’t something anyone wanted brought to the surface. Suffice it to say that we were told by HO downplay the legging defects and “assure” that our customers were purchasing a “proper” size. Mean girls syndrome was perpetuated at the top.

A more current example of mean girl syndrome has been with current retailer force lashing out at retailers that have chosen to go out of business (GOOB). When LuLaRoe pulled the 100% buyback policy (yes, it WAS a policy – there’s tons of proof on this), retailers were left with no option but to sell their inventory at any price in order to get it out of their lives. LuLaRoe was still offering the mandated 90% refund if it was sent back, but put so many stipulations on it that if we did send it back, we could not be sure that it would be accepted.

1. Items has to be in original packaging
2. Items had to be resalable, and whether they were resalable or not was at the sole discretion of LuLaRoe
3. We could not return “capsule” items (Valentine’s, Elegant, Halloween, etc.)
4. Any bonuses received would be subtracted from the refund amount
5. ANY ITEM THAT LULAROE DEEMED NON-REFUNDABLE WOULD BE DONATED TO A CHARITY OF THEIR CHOICE AND NOT RETURNED TO THE RETAILER

Yes, you heard that right. If LuLaRoe decided by their ultimate divining rod that any of your inventory was non-refundable, they would NOT return it to you. Based on the amount of inventory that was deemed non-refundable, that’s grand larceny folks. In American jurisdictions, the distinction between grand and petty theft is most commonly based on the value (in dollars) of the property stolen. The dollar amount for grand theft varies from state to state. You can see your grand larceny dollar amounts here.

So, most were left with no choice but to GOOB at highly discounted rates. Current retailer mean girls still in business are blaming the GOOB sales for their decline in sales, which is the absolute truth. HOWEVER, they refuse to acknowledge where the true blame lies: that LuLaRoe is 100% to blame for this situation. Their outrageous stipulations on what is an “acceptable” return and the hoops one must jump through make it acceptable, leaves ex-retailers not knowing if they’ll get a dime back for anything that they’ve purchased and returned, at all.

Current LuLaRoe retailers aka mean girls, when you read this, lay the blame where it lies: with LuLaRoe. Get your head out of the jug and realize that they’ve created this issues themselves. Stop being the “mean girl” and turn your hatred where it’s due, at your company that is blessing so many lives.

ALL CONTENT QUALIFIES UNDER FAIR USE POLICY.

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

THIS SITE MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. WE ARE MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN AN EFFORT TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC, DEMOCRACY, SCIENTIFIC, MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING, PYRAMID SCHEMES, AND TACTLESS AND INSENSITIVE SELLING METHODS, BLATANTLY HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, ETC. WE BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A ‘FAIR USE’ OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/USCODE/17/107.SHTML

IF YOU WISH TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR OWN THAT GO BEYOND ‘FAIR USE’, YOU MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.

THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES A “FAIR USE” OF COPYRIGHTED CONTENT. SECTION 107 OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT STATES:

“NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 106 AND 106A, THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK, INCLUDING SUCH USE BY REPRODUCTION IN COPIES OR PHONORECORDS OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS SPECIFIED BY THAT SECTION, FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING (INCLUDING MULTIPLE COPIES FOR CLASSROOM USE), SCHOLARSHIP, OR RESEARCH, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.”

THIS BLOG AND MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL, IN GENERAL, MAY CONTAIN CERTAIN COPYRIGHTED WORKS THAT WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO BE USED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S), BUT WHICH I BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH ARE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE REASONS NOTED ABOVE.