"If you don't have the money in your account right now, buy it anyway"

[thatu]

I'm not doubting anyone here, but which selling regulations actually stipulate that sellers aren't allowed to encourage customers to go into debt? I'm asking because I worked for a bank where they were very hot on this and made sure they didn't oversell or rather, sell irresponsibly, but that was banking and retail might be different.

 

[Awkward Annie]

I'm not doubting anyone here, but which selling regulations actually stipulate that sellers aren't allowed to encourage customers to go into debt? I'm asking because I worked for a bank where they were very hot on this and made sure they didn't oversell or rather, sell irresponsibly, but that was banking and retail might be different.

At the moment the laws protecting vulnerable people from "misleading & aggressive practices" mostly cover banking, home improvements, insurance etc, but from 2015 it's being extended under The Consumer Rights Bill, to include people buying on line, at home or in a shop!

 

[Mazza]

I doubt very much if they will change their approach

 

[Awkward Annie]

Don't know how it will affect them though, because they do give a no quibble money back guarantee, although by the time they give it back, you could be well in trouble with the bank:sweat: ( I know it would be our own fault!)

 

[thatu]

I think they're making hay while the sun shines.

 

[jacqualina]

It might not be robbery or illegal (yet?) but I think it is totally unethical. Bully for you for being of sound mind and able to make sensible, rational decisions for yourself. There are many people who are extremely vulnerable and are no longer able (or perhaps have never been able) to look after themselves or their finances in this way. The very elderly, dementia sufferers, people with bi-polar disorder and, no doubt, countless other groups need to be protected from the sharks in our society and a law to do this can't come fast enough in my opinion. Shame on QVC if they have now adopted this approach, shame on DF that she is happy to oblige and carry it out and shame on anyone who has no feelings or sympathy for those around us who need it most. A little compassion goes a long way.

 

[JW2]

I say empty your account, make many, many orders that will all be declined, then leave them on your account so that Q can't sell any of the products, of course they probably will, for whatever the time is 10 days, two weeks or whatever, we can all revolt and then blame on it DF as she told us too!! :mysmilie_19:

 

[Scout]

The very elderly, dementia sufferers, people with bi-polar disorder and, no doubt, countless other groups need to be protected from the sharks in our society and a law to do this can't come fast enough in my opinion. Shame on QVC if they have now adopted this approach, shame on DF that she is happy to oblige and carry it out and shame on anyone who has no feelings or sympathy for those around us who need it most. A little compassion goes a long way.

I care for a very elderly lady of 89 and I work with someone who's bi-polar - the former would never be able to work out how to order anything if her life depended on it (I always have to do it for her if she wants something) and the latter, if up, would have moved on at speed from whatever she was watching before doing anything about it and, if down, would never get herself together enough to be able to actually complete a transaction.

Compassion? Been there and done that when I was young - and learned my lesson. When reserved for humans it's vastly overrated and usually thrown back in your face or taken advantage of, so no more. All my compassion is reserved for non-human animals now. So, I guess by your standards it's shame on me then - that's fine, I can live with that.

 

[thatu]

Why are you caring for people if you don't have compassion for them? I'm a(n unpaid) carer and couldn't do it without compassion.

 

[Tiddlywinks]

Q is a business - its primary (only) function is to sell.

It's not there to entertain (other than is necessary to get us in a mood to buy), it's not there to make judgements on mental health or capacity of its viewers, it's not there to be a 'friend' to the vulnerable... it's a shopping channel, plain and simple.

Yes, there are vulnerable and/or impressionable people out in viewer land BUT it is not for Q to identify those people and stop them from buying... that is for social services, medical professional, family and friends to do.

Shame on me for feeling this way? Eh no! It's time that we all understood the realities of life. QVC is a profit making business... It's ALL about sales... that is NOT a bad thing, that is business.

 

[louise66]

Whilst the essence of what you say is true, I do believe that the Q does consider the ability to entertain, as pivotal to the success of the channel. Potential shoppers have to want to tune in and, realistically, most of us don't buy every time we watch. The viewer needs to find it entertaining, which is why I am watching less and less.

 

[Tiddlywinks]

Whilst the essence of what you say is true, I do believe that the Q does consider the ability to entertain, as pivotal to the success of the channel. Potential shoppers have to want to tune in and, realistically, most of us don't buy every time we watch. The viewer needs to find it entertaining, which is why I am watching less and less.

Q is a business - its primary (only) function is to sell.

It's not there to entertain (other than is necessary to get us in a mood to buy)

As I said, they are there to sell... entertainment is a secondary means to an end (sales).

If DF etc were really alienating the customers then sales would be down... and they would be replaced.

It's a business, the presenters are sales people, Q (like most large corporates) will employ analysts to review sales compared with variables such as presenters, time on air, weather, date etc etc. Selling is a science and Q will be constantly monitoring what works and what doesn't.

Presenters will be using a style that works and is acceptable to the company... they won't make any changes unless sales start to dip or focus groups suggest a drift in interest.

So, DF etc will continue doing what they're doing because it gets the required results - sales... which, in retail, is their reason for being.

 

[cazzie]

Whilst the essence of what you say is true, I do believe that the Q does consider the ability to entertain, as pivotal to the success of the channel. Potential shoppers have to want to tune in and, realistically, most of us don't buy every time we watch. The viewer needs to find it entertaining, which is why I am watching less and less.

I agree hence the 'Saturday night with Dale/Debbie' they are hoping people will watch and that should/could generate more sales.

 

[Awkward Annie]

QVCs original concept was to take a soft-sell approach, using " a talk show format & have fun along the way" combined with " respect concern, openness and trust" and not to take the fast paced, hard sell route. That's what made them so successful ! Maybe some presenters would do well to be reminded of this! Also, yes business is business, but there are limits as to how far a company can go! they are and will be heavily fined for overstepping those limits.

 

[thatu]

All businesses employ staff who work towards making a profit. Some of those profits go to the shareholders in the form of dividends, some to employees, charities, etc etc and not forgetting the Inland Revenue which collects and distributes wealth for the benefit of the community in the form of tax. Some of those taxes go to protecting the vulnerable, but sadly no matter how much the authorities try to protect the vulnerable, the authorities alone cannot protect all vulnerable people all of the time - that is down to the support network of each person as well, and it very much depends on how effective that is as to how well it works. Not all vulnerable people have adequate support, so there are always some who will be conned by unscrupulous sales techniques.

Should businesses have a code of ethics in selling, since their primary goal is to make money from sales? Should they have a social conscience? Should they consider that their sales techniques are conning the vulnerable? Should they sell unfairly labelled goods?

I personally despise pushy sales techniques but where should the nanny state take over? It would be nice to think that any retailer has a social conscience but their primary goal is to make money, whatever. QVC assuages its own conscience by raising money for breast cancer, but is that enough?

 

[Awkward Annie]

Yes thatu, I agree with everything you said but it's not a question of should they have a code of ethics, they are required by law to consider their sales techniques and conning the elderly and vulnerable, it may not stop all of them but it's there and it works.

 

[Tiddlywinks]

Yes thatu, I agree with everything you said but it's not a question of should they have a code of ethics, they are required by law to consider their sales techniques and conning the elderly and vulnerable, it may not stop all of them but it's there and it works.

How exactly are they 'conning the elderly and vulnerable'?

Here's a definition for 'con':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

Here's the reason for NOT making unfounded accusations:

http://www.seqlegal.com/blog/10-things-you-should-know-about-libel

I think people should be careful not to let their emotions lead them into remarks that might be considered spurious.

 

[Awkward Annie]

Sorry, I think you've misunderstood, I wasn't making accusations about QVC (I don't think they've gone that far yet!) or being spurious and emotional, just stating the fact that companies in general, can be held responsible!

 

[loveallthingsitalian]

I think everyone will have differing opinions on selling v ethical selling.
I fully agree that Q keeps portraying the soft sell image but in actual fact their selling techniques are becoming as hard as nails.
There are many on here who will not buy from companies who are not 100% proof positive animal friendly whereas there are some to whom it is not a make or break thing.
I suppose the thing is to vote with your feet but do we want to cut off our noses to spite out faces? We could boycott the hard sell shows and it may affect sales during those programmes but since a large proportion order on line and outside the actual show time who is able to say it was or was not due to DB Flint’s aggressive selling that you made your purchase.
Q and their ways are starting to leave a very bad taste in the mouth of late, but until we all stop watching and buying I’m afraid that our protests are falling on deaf ears, unless that is, someone is able to put this forward on social media in a way that will not put them into personal hot water.
I remember a previous forum member whose entire life revolved around Q and he either loved or hated presenters to an extent that it was uncomfortable. It just goes to show that not everyone is capable of distinguishing between TV and reality. Think about those people who have 500 plus Kipling bags!

 

[boffy]

take the tsv today the wash balls. i have bought them a couple of years ago, falling for the 2p a wash spiel. they certainly did not wash as good as the presenters are pushing. in fact imao they are a total waste of money. i returned mine. to add insult one of the presenters said this morning that qvc would not sell something that was not as good as it was presented. or they would have gone bust. its toooo hard a sell. you have to manage peoples expectations or they wont believe the hype/hard sell