Claire Sutton on Kirk's Folly Show

[Julius]

Speaking of the reviews of products on the QVC website:

"Good, bad, indifferent - they are all independently put up."

She painted a rather rose-tinted picture of total impartiality

No, Claire, this is not so. Many people pointing out items cheaper elsewhere, criticising a product negatively or describing problems with a product or service have had their reviews rejected!

QVC are INCREDIBLY controlling! My friend used to work in their call centre and described some horrendous things that they do.

 

[KimP]

If you follow the guidelines on what you cannot comment on, and price is one of them, then it's quite easy to post a negative review. I have had 1 star reviews posted and it takes very little effort to see the numbers of low star reviews posted for numerous items on the site. In fact I've read on here that someone had a 5 star review rejected. If you look at todays Emu repeat TSV then there are 16 1 star reviews and 10 2 star reviews out of a total of 96 so over 25% are less than glowing reviews. Hardly stacks up with the conspiracy theories does it?

 

[Mazza]

I have had a 5 star review rejected, and a couple of 1 star reviews posted, but what irritates me is that you get no explanation for a rejection. I think they are a bit arbitrary in imposing their rules TBH. I liked some of the examples from Amazon posted here, and think Q need to get a sense of humour and, so long as reviewers are polite, they should be able to comment on price and value compared to other brands.

 

[Julius]

If you follow the guidelines on what you cannot comment on, and price is one of them, then it's quite easy to post a negative review. I have had 1 star reviews posted and it takes very little effort to see the numbers of low star reviews posted for numerous items on the site. In fact I've read on here that someone had a 5 star review rejected. If you look at todays Emu repeat TSV then there are 16 1 star reviews and 10 2 star reviews out of a total of 96 so over 25% are less than glowing reviews. Hardly stacks up with the conspiracy theories does it?

I'm not so sure about that. Just because there is an official guideline it doesn't mean one cannot call its purpose into question. The "V" in QVC stands for "value," yet one is not allowed to comment on that element of a product?! Tell me that isn't QVC being controlling, eh! As for your comments about the Emu TSV, take another look. The vast majority of reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Were it the case that 75% of reviews were negative, something would surely happen, either to the reviews, or to QVC's relationship terminating with the supplier. And let us not forget the not entirely unrelated matter of the two longstanding presenters who parted company with QVC, and the pathetic, terse little snippet of a send-off they were given by way of a vague sentenced published online for a brief, transient period. If you wish to be oblivious to what is happening, that is your affair!

 

[Scout]

As with most things in life, there are rules to follow when posting reviews. Follow the rules and your review gets posted, break the rules and it doesn't, it's as simple as that. I've had quite a number of one and two star reviews posted and have had 5 star reviews rejected first time round. But every time I've had a review rejected I've called them and asked the reason for rejection. Once I knew the reason it was easy to reword the review to say exactly the same thing and to resubmit it without falling foul of the requirements. I have never, yet, not been able to say exactly what I wanted to say in a review. The conspiracy theorists need to take a look at the reviews for "No No", where the highest star rating for any of the models is 3, and one model has a 2 star rating. The reviews are consistently appalling for that product. No manipulation by Q there.

 

[jaydeen]

All the presenters seem to go on about that. Reviews maybe put up but they vanish too. Qvc never mention that part of it.

 

[Weathergirl]

As with most things in life, there are rules to follow when posting reviews. Follow the rules and your review gets posted, break the rules and it doesn't, it's as simple as that. I've had quite a number of one and two star reviews posted and have had 5 star reviews rejected first time round. But every time I've had a review rejected I've called them and asked the reason for rejection. Once I knew the reason it was easy to reword the review to say exactly the same thing and to resubmit it without falling foul of the requirements. I have never, yet, not been able to say exactly what I wanted to say in a review. The conspiracy theorists need to take a look at the reviews for "No No", where the highest star rating for any of the models is 3, and one model has a 2 star rating. The reviews are consistently appalling for that product. No manipulation by Q there.

Fair enough Scout, but I just don't have time to go to such lengths just to leave a review, so I never bother any more. With any sites, not just Q.

 

[thatu]

As with most things in life, there are rules to follow when posting reviews. Follow the rules and your review gets posted, break the rules and it doesn't, it's as simple as that. I've had quite a number of one and two star reviews posted and have had 5 star reviews rejected first time round. But every time I've had a review rejected I've called them and asked the reason for rejection. Once I knew the reason it was easy to reword the review to say exactly the same thing and to resubmit it without falling foul of the requirements. I have never, yet, not been able to say exactly what I wanted to say in a review. The conspiracy theorists need to take a look at the reviews for "No No", where the highest star rating for any of the models is 3, and one model has a 2 star rating. The reviews are consistently appalling for that product. No manipulation by Q there.

Not so, I'm afraid. I gave Emu stinger hi boots a one star review because they rubbed through on the heel and gave me blisters but the review was rejected - no reason given, except that they must have broken the guidelines. See this earlier thread.

 

[Julius]

Not so, I'm afraid. I gave Emu stinger hi boots a one star review because they rubbed through on the heel and gave me blisters but the review was rejected - no reason given, except that they must have broken the guidelines. See this earlier thread.

I rest my case.

 

[Nicky-j]

Not so, I'm afraid. I gave Emu stinger hi boots a one star review because they rubbed through on the heel and gave me blisters but the review was rejected - no reason given, except that they must have broken the guidelines. See this earlier thread.

I don't know whether you did this or not, but when this happened to me, I asked to know precisely how I had broken the guidelines and they were very helpful. As it turned out it was because i had mentioned that the item was a TSV when I bought it. I was able to re-do the review, omitting the 'offending' bit and it was posted. Might be worth checking with them.

 

[thatu]

Thanks but I did ask - several phone calls and emails - but received no answer at all, other than each response was that it hadn't met the guidelines. I looked at the guidelines and couldn't see which rule my review had infringed, so I can't trust the system and the result is that I don't read or post any more reviews. I just think they didn't like mention of the stitching inside the heel rubbing so much that it caused blisters. Interestingly I did get all my money back so someone in CS saw that there was a real problem with the boots, but they lost sales of 2 pairs of Emu boots which I'll never replace - and the site lost an honest review. Sad.

Apologies for the digression!

 

[mr tom]

Mr Julius, out of interest, what did they do up in qvc towers, from what you learned from your friend. (in relation to the reviews)

I'm a bit surprised no one else was curious about that