I think it depends on the sort of items being returned. If it's mainly clothing a 50% returns rate is not outrageous. Aside from the regular sizing issues it's only by trying it one that you can see if it looks as good on you as it does on a styled professional model. If there is a policy of closing accounts once returns reach a certain level then it should be disclosed on air.
ASA Complaint - Misleading Advertising
- Thread starter Pinkpussycat
- Start date
Help Support ShoppingTelly:
- Status
Vienna
Registered Shopper
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2012
- Messages
- 6,008
For regular Q shoppers I should imagine its easy to reach 50% returns without even being too picky. I`ve never bought much from Q but a lot of people do a big chunk of their shopping either online or via shopping channels and unlike real shops you can`t feel the quality, try things on or know for certain something is right for you until you get it delivered. Q says they`re a shop like any other but that they merely sell from a tv studio instead of a bricks and mortar store, therefore it should be expected that people might want to try on 4 different dresses, 3 different pairs of shoes, a couple of different handbags, a bracelet or two or try out a new style of something etc. When I go into a fitting room I might take several items in with me and only buy one of them, in Q`s case, the customers home is their fitting room is it not ?
Sizing is a big issue, my shoe size varies depending on the style and width of the shoe so I always have to try 2 different sizes, my dress size varies because I am a size bigger around my boobs than my hips so once again I`d have to try 2 different sizes and unlike other jewellery channels Q diesn`t give gram weights of rings, bracelets etc and so when they arrive and they`re hollow or so thin they might bend, the customer wouldn`t know until they held them in their hands. If I was a regular Q shopper I reckon I`d rack up 50% returns without even trying and Q can`t have their cake and to eat it. They can`t say oh we`re just like any other store, in fact we`re better than any other store because we give you 30 days mbg and they can`t get 30 days interest on people`s money and then complain when people use them as a store and return things. The emphasis is on the word " shopping " and they`re quick to play to those people who perhaps have no other means of shopping for whatever reasons and tell everybody buy one , buy six and if you don`t like it then return it.
Sizing is a big issue, my shoe size varies depending on the style and width of the shoe so I always have to try 2 different sizes, my dress size varies because I am a size bigger around my boobs than my hips so once again I`d have to try 2 different sizes and unlike other jewellery channels Q diesn`t give gram weights of rings, bracelets etc and so when they arrive and they`re hollow or so thin they might bend, the customer wouldn`t know until they held them in their hands. If I was a regular Q shopper I reckon I`d rack up 50% returns without even trying and Q can`t have their cake and to eat it. They can`t say oh we`re just like any other store, in fact we`re better than any other store because we give you 30 days mbg and they can`t get 30 days interest on people`s money and then complain when people use them as a store and return things. The emphasis is on the word " shopping " and they`re quick to play to those people who perhaps have no other means of shopping for whatever reasons and tell everybody buy one , buy six and if you don`t like it then return it.
Weathergirl
Registered Shopper
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
- Messages
- 3,759
What Vienna describes is the whole purpose behind the Distance Selling Regulations. QVC go one step further with the 30 day MBG though by allowing you to try the product, and with the DSR you have to return the product in a resaleable condition, which rules out most beauty items. Most of my returns are not under the DSR because they are beauty products or I am too lazy. I also cancel a lot of orders online because I can be so indecisive about what I want especially when I have a specific budget. I can't see how this costs Q anything and it saves me the cost of postage. I will be much more careful in the future though after reading this thread.
Akimbo
Fluffy
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 10,447
In short, it's not the 50% threshold that's the problem it's QVC's reliance on the unqualified 30 day MBG as a selling tool.
Those people who've had returned items sent back to them, and their refund refused, really should report it to the ASA, since QVC are trying to limit their apparent unconditional MBG with a "fair usage" clause which is neither transparent nor qualified in their sales pitch.
*edit - this is in reply to Chill3d's post but I forgot to quote it!
Those people who've had returned items sent back to them, and their refund refused, really should report it to the ASA, since QVC are trying to limit their apparent unconditional MBG with a "fair usage" clause which is neither transparent nor qualified in their sales pitch.
*edit - this is in reply to Chill3d's post but I forgot to quote it!
Last edited:
Whilst I absolutely agree that QVC have the right to refuse to sell to people who abuse the system (I've worked in retail/home shopping for over 25 years and there absolutely are dishonest people who seek to exploit and abuse retailers goodwill promises), the issue is the process for identifying those tipping the balance the wrong way. Even within home shopping, different categories work to very different levels of returns as standard. I've worked with categories where the returns % is less than 1% (generally consumable items with a high level of repeat purchase where people know what they are buying and are replenishing items) but also categories where 60%+ returns would not be unusual (fashion being a case in point, when you go down to the warehouse and see orders with the same item in 3 sizes being dispatched, and you know that you are going to get 2/3rds of that order returned at the very least, even if the customer likes the item). QVC's sales mix seems to have changed over the last few years, fashion and beauty now seem to be completely dominating their programme schedules. Craft, which would have had a relatively low returns rate has disappeared. If their sales mix has changed to high return rate categories but their threshold for suspect levels of returns has not, then they are going to be offending a large number of genuine customers who are not abusing the system.
Weathergirl
Registered Shopper
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
- Messages
- 3,759
Ok let's look at this from a different perspective. A direct comparison with Amazon. I shop with both QVC and Amazon. With regard to my QVC purchases I have bought a lot but have also returned a lot. The items I have returned have been mainly fashion, jewellery that was too flimsy, hollow or the strap too short etc, truly cheap looking or beauty items I reacted to or had damaged in transit. I have also returned every single kipling bag I have bought from Q as I have always found the item cheaper elsewhere. I have now stopped buying kipling from Q because of the very high cost to return them. I have also cancelled a few orders online because I genuinely chose something else from Q to buy instead.
Take amazon now. I have also bought a fair bit- Lola Rose, Fly London shoes, kindle, kipling bags and Easiyo tubs for example. All on free supersaver delivery. All with free returns and very prompt refunds. All at a fraction of the price Q charge. And yet I have only returned 2 items to Amazon. 1 -a pair of shoes that were too small and 1 a kipling bag where I had ordered 2 but only intended to keep 1.
So why are my returns less to Amazon when delivery & returns are free and the prices are cheaper? No 30 day MBG even when used. No presenter misleading me on air. I just buy what I want at my own leisure-often having seen it and liked it on Q.
Have Q considered that if they changed their policy-maybe just maybe customers would return less?
Take amazon now. I have also bought a fair bit- Lola Rose, Fly London shoes, kindle, kipling bags and Easiyo tubs for example. All on free supersaver delivery. All with free returns and very prompt refunds. All at a fraction of the price Q charge. And yet I have only returned 2 items to Amazon. 1 -a pair of shoes that were too small and 1 a kipling bag where I had ordered 2 but only intended to keep 1.
So why are my returns less to Amazon when delivery & returns are free and the prices are cheaper? No 30 day MBG even when used. No presenter misleading me on air. I just buy what I want at my own leisure-often having seen it and liked it on Q.
Have Q considered that if they changed their policy-maybe just maybe customers would return less?
loveallthingsitalian
Registered Shopper
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2012
- Messages
- 15,055
I think everyone would agree that without the "try before you keep" policy they would never buy any consumable item from Q, it would be down to the local Boots, beg for a sample and then buy elsewhere online. It is really tbe only plus point Q has to make up for fleecing us on price and P&p.
99% of my returns are clothes which were nothing like described or the measurements totally different to those stated on the website.
As a matter of interest do folks buy makeup from IW when it cant be tried before being returned?
All I do know is that when a certain high street stops returns I will be well and truely shafted! (still miss the 90 day returns - those where the days)
99% of my returns are clothes which were nothing like described or the measurements totally different to those stated on the website.
As a matter of interest do folks buy makeup from IW when it cant be tried before being returned?
All I do know is that when a certain high street stops returns I will be well and truely shafted! (still miss the 90 day returns - those where the days)
Akimbo
Fluffy
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 10,447
That's an excellent point WG. These days I probably buy as much from Ideal World as I do from QVC (mainly because I order far less from Q these days) but I've only returned 3 items to IW ever! I did lumber myself with a top in the early days of IW when they had a 90 day MBG, because I was lazy and completely forgot to return it as there was no real time pressure, until the 90 days were up! I think you're right that there's a pressure to order from Q in the instant when the item is being shown. I watch less Ideal Worth and mostly order in my own time from the website. Maybe it's the hype and the constant stock updates and apparent urgency to buy that are to blame for too many regretted impulse buys form QVC?
When it was possible to order by cheque it gave me a longer cooling off period in which to shop around or talk myself out of a purchase and I did cancel a few orders within a day or so. When the new website offered a facility to cancel orders any time up to despatch I was really impressed but within a few weeks this was altered to allow only 30 mins or so in which to cancel an order which isn't nearly as useful.
When it was possible to order by cheque it gave me a longer cooling off period in which to shop around or talk myself out of a purchase and I did cancel a few orders within a day or so. When the new website offered a facility to cancel orders any time up to despatch I was really impressed but within a few weeks this was altered to allow only 30 mins or so in which to cancel an order which isn't nearly as useful.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2QB 163
PPC, this is a leading case in contract law, the ratio of which is that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable prior notice. It a Lord Denning MR case; in consequence it is a good read for those with or without legal training.
Good luck with the fight.
Jay
Pinkpussycat
Meeoow....
ASA Decision
I have heard from the ASA and I have copied their final decision below:
Dear Mrs *******
Thank you for your email clarifying your complaint.</SPAN>
When we consider advertising we take a view on how it is likely to affect consumers in general, and take into account whether the average consumer is likely to be misled.</SPAN>
We understand from QVC that this policy of closing accounts affects a very small minority of customers – approximately 0.01% of accounts were closed for this reason over the period of a year. Because the policy affects so few consumers, we do not feel that it is warranted to request QVC to mention the policy in their broadcasts, nor to elaborate in their Terms and Conditions.</SPAN>
We also note that the Terms and Conditions state that QVC contact customers whose level of returns is high before invoking the policy – having been forewarned, therefore, consumers are further unlikely to be misled by the advertising to their detriment.</SPAN>
We are concerned with advertising, and such a small minority of customers are affected by the policy that we feel that consumers are unlikely to be misled by QVC’s advertising in this way. We therefore concluded that there was no case to answer under the Code.</SPAN>
Kind regards</SPAN>
Anthony McGarry</SPAN>
Complaints Executive</SPAN>
Direct line 020 7492 2185</SPAN>
[email protected]</SPAN></SPAN>
Advertising Standards Authority</SPAN>
Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn</SPAN>
London WC1V 6QT</SPAN>
Telephone 020 7492 2222</SPAN>
www.asa.org.uk</SPAN></SPAN>
So there you are. Unfortunately I feel that the person assessing my complaint has focused on the fact that QVC closed my account and is basing my complaint on this whereas my complaint was actually about Q's misrepresentation on air regarding their mbg which is strongly implied by the presenters to be unconditional but in actual fact IS conditional. I have tried to explain to Mr McGarry that my complaint wasn't about the closure of my account (hence the clarification reference in his email) but about QVC's misleading advertising but this seems to have been totally ignored by him. :headbang:
I have heard from the ASA and I have copied their final decision below:
Dear Mrs *******
Thank you for your email clarifying your complaint.</SPAN>
When we consider advertising we take a view on how it is likely to affect consumers in general, and take into account whether the average consumer is likely to be misled.</SPAN>
We understand from QVC that this policy of closing accounts affects a very small minority of customers – approximately 0.01% of accounts were closed for this reason over the period of a year. Because the policy affects so few consumers, we do not feel that it is warranted to request QVC to mention the policy in their broadcasts, nor to elaborate in their Terms and Conditions.</SPAN>
We also note that the Terms and Conditions state that QVC contact customers whose level of returns is high before invoking the policy – having been forewarned, therefore, consumers are further unlikely to be misled by the advertising to their detriment.</SPAN>
We are concerned with advertising, and such a small minority of customers are affected by the policy that we feel that consumers are unlikely to be misled by QVC’s advertising in this way. We therefore concluded that there was no case to answer under the Code.</SPAN>
Kind regards</SPAN>
Anthony McGarry</SPAN>
Complaints Executive</SPAN>
Direct line 020 7492 2185</SPAN>
[email protected]</SPAN></SPAN>
Advertising Standards Authority</SPAN>
Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn</SPAN>
London WC1V 6QT</SPAN>
Telephone 020 7492 2222</SPAN>
www.asa.org.uk</SPAN></SPAN>
So there you are. Unfortunately I feel that the person assessing my complaint has focused on the fact that QVC closed my account and is basing my complaint on this whereas my complaint was actually about Q's misrepresentation on air regarding their mbg which is strongly implied by the presenters to be unconditional but in actual fact IS conditional. I have tried to explain to Mr McGarry that my complaint wasn't about the closure of my account (hence the clarification reference in his email) but about QVC's misleading advertising but this seems to have been totally ignored by him. :headbang:
Hmm, I had a feeling this might happen, as QVC are very careful not to refuse refunds, but to refuse further orders. I think a complaint about refusal of 30MBG because of "excessive" usage may be more successful, particularly if the product was being used by more than 1 person in the household.
Pinkpussycat
Meeoow....
Tbh Jude if that reply hadn't come from someone representing an official regulatory organisation I would think it rather disingenuous...
I'm really not bothered that QVC don't want me as a customer anymore but the desire for fair play in all things is strong in me (probably my Libra characteristics coming to the fore) and it does pi$$ me off that QVC can get away with this type of misrepresentation. I can only hope that many more people will complain about this issue and one day QVC will be forced to be more honest on air about their mbg.
I'm really not bothered that QVC don't want me as a customer anymore but the desire for fair play in all things is strong in me (probably my Libra characteristics coming to the fore) and it does pi$$ me off that QVC can get away with this type of misrepresentation. I can only hope that many more people will complain about this issue and one day QVC will be forced to be more honest on air about their mbg.
Pinkpussycat
Meeoow....
You're probably right Dips but I have never used anything and returned it to QVC, it's something I wouldn't dream of doing to them or any other retailer...unless a product proved to be faulty within its warranty period but that's a different thing altogether.
So there you are. Unfortunately I feel that the person assessing my complaint has focused on the fact that QVC closed my account and is basing my complaint on this whereas my complaint was actually about Q's misrepresentation on air regarding their mbg which is strongly implied by the presenters to be unconditional but in actual fact IS conditional. I have tried to explain to Mr McGarry that my complaint wasn't about the closure of my account (hence the clarification reference in his email) but about QVC's misleading advertising but this seems to have been totally ignored by him. :headbang:
[/QUOTE]
Very sorry to hear of the response from ASA; Moth’s description of it as a toothless dog still applies.
You are right; Mr McGarry has concentrated on the ‘small’ minority of customers whose accounts have been closed by Q, and has sidestepped the important points that Q’s 30-day mbg is not unconditional. Rather, it is a conditional one, based on criteria about which Q is silent, namely
- What is the percentage of returns deemed high?
- Over what period does Q monitor returns?
- What counts as a return – everything?
Like Akimbo, I suspect that Q includes every item including
- Those returned under the distance selling regulations
- Faulty goods
- Wrong items
- Items lost in transit
- Unnecessary replacements
- Goods that don’t fit
- Beauty products which cause reactions
- Shoddy goods
I keep a record of all my returns, and note into which category an item falls. This would enable me to counter any child from Q’s finance department, were he/she to ask me to explain my returns. Is there any chance that you have kept a record of your returns over say the last 18 months?
If I were you, I would write to the Chief Executive of ASA, pointing out your concerns, and your dissatisfaction with ASA’s initial response, and asking that your concerns be looked at again. As Moth has pointed out, she was not given a printed list of Q’s terms and conditions when she opened her account. Neither was I.
I would also consider contacting consumer programmes such as ‘You and Yours’ on Radio 4, on those on BBC TV/ Channel 4 if there are any.
Another avenue might be the consumer association.
Don't give up.
Jay
[/QUOTE]
Very sorry to hear of the response from ASA; Moth’s description of it as a toothless dog still applies.
You are right; Mr McGarry has concentrated on the ‘small’ minority of customers whose accounts have been closed by Q, and has sidestepped the important points that Q’s 30-day mbg is not unconditional. Rather, it is a conditional one, based on criteria about which Q is silent, namely
- What is the percentage of returns deemed high?
- Over what period does Q monitor returns?
- What counts as a return – everything?
Like Akimbo, I suspect that Q includes every item including
- Those returned under the distance selling regulations
- Faulty goods
- Wrong items
- Items lost in transit
- Unnecessary replacements
- Goods that don’t fit
- Beauty products which cause reactions
- Shoddy goods
I keep a record of all my returns, and note into which category an item falls. This would enable me to counter any child from Q’s finance department, were he/she to ask me to explain my returns. Is there any chance that you have kept a record of your returns over say the last 18 months?
If I were you, I would write to the Chief Executive of ASA, pointing out your concerns, and your dissatisfaction with ASA’s initial response, and asking that your concerns be looked at again. As Moth has pointed out, she was not given a printed list of Q’s terms and conditions when she opened her account. Neither was I.
I would also consider contacting consumer programmes such as ‘You and Yours’ on Radio 4, on those on BBC TV/ Channel 4 if there are any.
Another avenue might be the consumer association.
Don't give up.
Jay
Weathergirl
Registered Shopper
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
- Messages
- 3,759
I suspect the issue is more a consumer contract rather than an advertising one. However if I ever get the letter or the phonecall my response will be "go ahead and close my account. I asked you to a year ago and you never did it. It will save me a fortune. Your loss".
miss molly
Registered Shopper
Sorry to hear that PPC, i have been watching Q today off and on and if you ask me they are struggling. Nearly every item sells out damn quick and they go to advance Orders i don't think they are ordering nearly as much stock as they used to. If you order a ring you want it asap not in two months time.
PJ.
In an Ideal World ...
And add to the fact that QVC HD is nowhere to be seen nearly a year later. All adds up to not doing well as you saw Miss M x
Pinkpussycat
Meeoow....
Thanks for this case info Jay, it is indeed very interesting. I've just had a quick look at it on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v_Shoe_Lane_Parking_Ltd and although the 'contract' in question is an entirely different one, in essence the principle appears to be the same:
"Lord Denning MR held that the more onerous the clause, the better notice of it needed to be given. Moreover the contract was already concluded when the ticket came out of the machine, and so any condition on it could not be incorporated in the contract"
It's too late now for me to concentrate fully but I shall look into this in greater depth tomorrow as I have already decided not to let this matter drop without taking it higher within the ASA.
- Status
