Oh, hey there Agnes & Dora – the family resemblance begins! We see you there……did you actually JUST do the same thing that LuLaRoe did ages ago? You saw how well it turned our for them, right?
Another MLM is encouraging the mean girls syndrome upon their retailers: “please tattle on our retailers and let us know what you see”. Just exactly how well did that work for LuLaRoe? That turned out HORRIBLY for LuLaRoe. LuLaRoe is now involved in no less than 10 active lawsuits some of which speak to the bullying of retailers by their uplines.
A&D better check themselves, because in most states, a buy back policy for unused “new” inventory is REQUIRED. And that buyback requires that retailers wishing to get out of the business can return items for a 90% refund. Noticing the similarities yet? The owner of Agnes & Dora, Elizabeth (Buffy) Bandley (maiden: Worsley) is LuLaRoe founder Deanne Stidham’s niece. Didja know that?
Looks like Agnes & Dora is falling into the family’s footsteps in regards to trying prevent going out of business sales and then threatening retailers. One thing that A&D has done that LuLaRoe never did is that if you are caught discounting your inventory, you CANNOT participate in the “Buy Back” program. That’s a really slippery slope right there. I wonder if Auntie DeAnne coached Buffy on this little “stunt”? The similarities that are starting to emerge within A&D in regards to LuLaRoe are eye-opening to say the least.
Remember all those reps that stated “A&D is SO different than LuLaRoe” and “Buffy really cares about us”? Are you still feeling that same way? If you are, I think you need to get your wits about you because A&D will be heading down the same path as LuLaRoe before too long. GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN, and still retain your soul.
It really breaks my heart to see yet another clothing MLM doing this to their retailers. One would think that the examples set by LuLaRoe of how NOT to treat their retailers would have taught all of them a thing or two. Apparently not.
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.