Lodge Farm Kitchen - Ridiculously Expensive

[Craftalot]

Who gets to decide what's 'overpriced'?

People are buying so that's the 'market price'... If they considered it overpriced then they wouldn't purchase. Simple economics.

That's a fair point. But just from a common-sense point of view, is £35 for a few pies a 'market price'. If so, why aren't the main supermarkets charging this too? Surely, the differentiating factor between them and QVC is persuasion - personal persuasion from your 'friend' presenter, the one you can, of course, trust. The one who's in your sitting-room telling you to 'buy, buy, buy'. And with this, surely, should come some degree of moral responsibility. Even more so when 'interest-free credit' and 'auto-delivery' is being offered - i.e. making it as easy as possible to tip these people upside-down and see what comes out of their pockets. That's my point.

Thank you for engaging with my argument reasonably and playing the ball, not the man.

 

[loveheart]

We are all free to decide whether to spend 50p on a pie or £8.50, a couple of pounds on a moisturiser or nearly £100.00, a cheap handbag for a fiver or five hundred pounds.I'm not sure how we can critisise QVC for selling expensive products or for giving people the choice to buy them.

 

[Tiddlywinks]

That's a fair point. But just from a common-sense point of view, is £35 for a few pies a 'market price'. If so, why aren't the main supermarkets charging this too? Surely, the differentiating factor between them and QVC is persuasion - personal persuasion from your 'friend' presenter, the one you can, of course, trust. The one who's in your sitting-room telling you to 'buy, buy, buy'. And with this, surely, should come some degree of moral responsibility. That's my point.

Thank you for engaging with my argument reasonably and playing the ball, not the man.

Why aren't supermarkets charging these prices? Again basic economics - market forces and too many competitors for their customers.

Just as bread can vary in price from the 'discount' supermarkets up through to independant stores in Notting Hill, so can the cost of any product.

Similarly with cars... Is a Bentley really 'worth' more than a Fiat? They will both get you from A to B.

This company has set its price and chosen to use Q as its outlet. Customers will then decide the ongoing success of the business by making their buying decisions.

There is nothing immoral in providing a customer with choice.

 

[Vienna]

They charge those prices because they can and they know that someone, somewhere will buy them. The presenters will see no difference in flogging expensive food to flogging expensive bags etc. It`s just a job to them. As for Q having a moral compass, well they never have and they never will. it`s business, rightly or wrongly it`s money and sales which matter to them and not whether they`re selling value for money or whether their customers can afford what they sell.
The onus is on the customer and it reminds me of once asking to buy a pair of pink ankle socks in Harrods (many moons ago), the sales girl got them from under the glass counter and said " that will be £22 please ". I said " £22 for a pair of socks, you must be joking? ". She looked at me with a blank expression and said " ah yes but this IS Harrods and these ARE socks being sold by Harrods ".
In other words the ready meals aren`t just ready meals, they are ready meals being sold by Q, not Asda nor Tesco and Q likes to convince it`s customers that they are selling exclusivity. Most people would know better but there`s always going to be those who swallow it.
BTW I didn`t buy the socks !

 

[ohnonotshoppingagain]

I hate when qvc do this all their food items in my opinion are meant for fools or people with too much money to spend. Their pricing policy is ridiculous.

 

[Craftalot]

Why aren't supermarkets charging these prices? Again basic economics - market forces and too many competitors for their customers.

Just as bread can vary in price from the 'discount' supermarkets up through to independant stores in Notting Hill, so can the cost of any product.

Similarly with cars... Is a Bentley really 'worth' more than a Fiat? They will both get you from A to B.

This company has set its price and chosen to use Q as its outlet. Customers will then decide the ongoing success of the business by making their buying decisions.

There is nothing immoral in providing a customer with choice.

I think we're arguing two different points here. I don't disagree with you on the fundamental economics of the argument - you've just basically sketched out how a free market operates to set a price - that is beyond reproach. And as you say, the 'value' of a good is, fundamentally, that which the market is prepared to pay. Thus, to use your example, despite a Bentley being intrinsically more 'valuable' than a Fiat (in terms of amount of raw materials used and overall 'quality of workmanship', ultimately the Bentley has a higher price because the market perceives it to be more valuable.

It's not the economics I have a problem with. It is, and I repeat, the persuasive sales technique used to make something rather basic appear like it's something else. Something 'better'. Something 'special'. When in fact, it's just a pie. The very fact that this thread exists is testament to a feeling that, somehow, you can't reasonably sell a pie for £35. Again I come back to my main point: that a professional, slick, well-trained and well-paid salesman is very well placed to take advantage of an audience comprised in large part of rapt, easily-persuaded people to spend a lot of money on not much. It's a classic tale of David and Goliath.

And again, I stress that the Q has a perfect right to do this. And people have a perfect right to spend whatever they want on whatever they want. I question whether this is desirable, not whether it is legal, honest, allowable etc - all of that isn't in question. I would suggest that a debt-fuelled consumer binge led by people with a shaky moral compass has already occurred in 2008, and thus a repeat of it would be, at the very least, undesirable. And I think the topic is fair for comment.

 

[Tiddlywinks]

I hate when qvc do this all their food items in my opinion are meant for fools or people with too much money to spend. Their pricing policy is ridiculous.

Just having the money available to buy something and decide to buy it does not make someone a fool and it is rude to assume that.

Q and their suppliers will set their prices according to market research and the demographics of their customers... that's good business and not in the least ridiculous.

 

[Tiddlywinks]

It is, and I repeat, the persuasive sales technique used to make something rather basic appear like it's something else. Something 'better'. Something 'special'. When in fact, it's just a pie. The very fact that this thread exists is testament to a feeling that, somehow, you can't reasonably sell a pie for £35. Again I come back to my main point: that a professional, slick, well-trained and well-paid salesman is very well placed to take advantage of an audience comprised in large part of rapt, easily-persuaded people to spend a lot of money on not much. It's a classic tale of David and Goliath.

Gosh, so Q customers have no free will? We all sit rapt and hanging on the presenter's every word? We're gullible and malleable? I'd better stop watching then.

As to selling a pie for £35... Well, you can... as Q has clearly demonstrated.

Just because some of us feel the price is too high, does not make it so.

... and not all Q viewers are drooling, weak willed numbskulls just waiting to be preyed upon by the evil corporate giant.

It's just business!

 

[Craftalot]

Gosh, so Q customers have no free will? We all sit rapt and hanging on the presenter's every word? We're gullible and malleable? I'd better stop watching then.

As to selling a pie for £35... Well, you can... as Q has clearly demonstrated.

Just because some of us feel the price is too high, does not make it so.

... and not all Q viewers are drooling, weak willed numbskulls just waiting to be preyed upon by the evil corporate giant.

It's just business!

Oh dear. If you re-read my earlier posts, I was quite clear that I do not believe that all 'Q customers have no free will are weak-willed numbskulls, etc etc'. I said that 'some' and '...large part' of the audience could be easily persuaded by their trusty 'friend' presenter selling them easy pays and auto delivery. I also said that the members of this forum, of which you are one, are probably not your typical QVC audience and are a bit more clued up, which sort of makes your first sentence rather redundant. I think it would be difficult to argue that a large part of the QVC audience are noteasily persuaded - were this not the case, then I think we could dispense with the shrieking harridans en masse...

I think you've rather cherry-picked through my posts, ignoring the main points I'm trying to make whilst simultaneously trying to make me sound hysterical. Your sole argument seems to be 'it's just business/capitalism' without any deeper thought on how exactly it operates, or whether there might be any moral ambiguity in QVC's operations. I'm certainly not going to patronise this forum and its members by assuming that they want nothing other than to read about shoes and bags and the latest TSV and any other discussion is strictly unwanted. However, I think I was mistaken in my thought that we could have had a reasonable, intelligent argument on this, without misquoting each other or being facetious. Please accept my apologies. We'll agree to differ on it, shall we?

 

[Tiddlywinks]

Oh dear. If you re-read my earlier posts, I was quite clear that I do not believe that all 'Q customers have no free will are weak-willed numbskulls, etc etc'. I said that 'some' of the audience could be easily persuaded by their trusty 'friend' presenter selling them easy pays and auto delivery.

So you believe all services should be constrained by the 'lowest common denominator'? Are businesses always to assume feeble minded attributes as being present in their customers when planning services?

Q is a retail business selling directly to the public.

If those buyers are free to purchase (no straight jackets or warders to restrict their actions) then surely they should be assumed to be sufficiently competent to buy (or not) an expensive pie.

Give viewers some credit.

 

[Craftalot]

So you believe all services should be constrained by the 'lowest common denominator'? Are businesses always to assume feeble minded attributes as being present in their customers when planning services?

Q is a retail business selling directly to the public.

If those buyers are free to purchase (no straight jackets or warders to restrict their actions) then surely they should be assumed to be sufficiently competent to buy (or not) an expensive pie.

Give viewers some credit.

I notice that you now describe the pie as 'expensive'...

I believe that capitalism has to have some sort of conscience or moral direction, and without this the inevitable result is greed. We've already been there with that. And greed tends to be unidirectional. It's not a question of constraining by a lowest common denominator - it's accepting that as as a sales channel which beams directly into people's sitting rooms; one which is by any standards a slick, well-funded and professional outfit with even slicker salesmen, it should be held to a higher level of responsibility than any old shop on the High Street, in large part due to its likely audience. And I question the morality of selling a couple of pies for £35 whilst simultaneously pushing the easy-pays, 30-days money-back guarantee etc etc. Yes, it is business. But I think we've all realised by now that business doesn't necessarily get things right.

I think it's easy to say 'give viewers some credit' when it's you, or me, saying it. However, it's a straw man. Using your same argument, you could suggest that banks should 'give borrowers some credit' to decide whether they can afford a (clearly unaffordable) mortgage. The bank has no moral obligation towards its borrowers - just let them borrow what they want; indeed push them into a 100% self-cert whether or not they can really afford it (because its just business...), and then when the inevitable happens and their house is repossessed, we can just point at them and go 'well, it's your fault'. Or a doctor should give a patient 'some credit' in prescribing Valium on repeat prescription with no thought as to whether or not the patient might develop a life-changing addiction to them. You might think these examples over the top, but they both share something in common with QVC - in each example there is an person, organisation or business (the bank, the doctor, QVC) with an unequal power balance with its target (the borrower, the patient or the buyer). And that unequal power balance, due to knowledge, persuasion etc. should create obligations as well as rights. This is my fundamental point.

 

[Tiddlywinks]

Wow, just WOW.

It's only a SHOPPING CHANNEL - and it's only a READY MEAL - buy, don't buy... we all have a choice.

World peace or any other matter of great importance does not rest on such decisions.

I'm off to my bed.

 

[Bettyboo]

I can't believe some of these posts it sounds like a political party broadcast over the price of food. I still think it's scandalous and ridiculous that people are being almost brainwashed into paying these prices. Having said that people can spend or waste their money however they want.

 

[MrMarple]

I smoke and it costs me £7.25 per day for a packet of cigarettes, so I don't feel that I can criticise anyone for spending their money how they want.

I buy a specific type of flavoured water. It costs me £1.00 for a litre from Asda, but if Asda are unfortunately out of stock I have to buy it from the Co-Op at £2.50 per litre.
That's my choice. Am I being ripped off? Probably, but I do have the choice not to buy it at the more expensive price.

For the last 5-6 years, I have definitely noticed a shift with Q's target audience. They seem to now target people with more disposable income which is fine with me. No different to Aldi V Waitrose IMO. We buy what we can afford.

 

[SallyMc]

Did no-one notice this little beauty????

Item no:803786

Lodge Farm Kitchen 3x 1.8kg Hand Made Family Favourite Meals

Enlarge photo
More views
Lodge Farm Kitchen 3x 1.8kg Hand Made Family Favourite MealsLodge Farm Kitchen 3x 1.8kg Hand Made Family Favourite Meals
Currently viewing: Video Help
Because QVC's special offers are available for a limited time only, previously recorded videos may contain pricing, exclusivity claims or promotional offers that have expired.
Video:Lodge Farm Kitchen 3x 1.8kg Hand Made Family Favourite Meals
QVC Price:

£99.00

P&P: £4.95


Yes, that £100+ for 3 family meals........

:mysmilie_13:

 

[Tiddlywinks]

If Q's customers don't buy the £99 meals then they won't continue to stock them. If they sell, then the range will stay.

Yes, the cost is higher than in the supermarket and it's interesting to wonder about why BUT some people have really extreme views which I find extraordinary.

Calling a retailer immoral for just daring to sell something expensive or calling customers foolish and brainwashed for buying is just OTT.

I often wonder why some people on here watch Q... is it some kind of masochistic trial? If you didn't like John Lewis then you'd just not go through their door; so don't watch Q when they are selling something that 'offends' - simple really.

 

[Craftalot]

If Q's customers don't buy the £99 meals then they won't continue to stock them. If they sell, then the range will stay.

Yes, the cost is higher than in the supermarket and it's interesting to wonder about why BUT some people have really extreme views which I find extraordinary.

Calling a retailer immoral for just daring to sell something expensive or calling customers foolish and brainwashed for buying is just OTT.

I often wonder why some people on here watch Q... is it some kind of masochistic trial? If you didn't like John Lewis then you'd just not go through their door; so don't watch Q when they are selling something that 'offends' - simple really.

And again, quotes taken out of context or just plain misquoting of what I've said. Just some simplistic, banal 'argument', banging the same drum just a little bit louder. Are you Alex Salmond? Anyway, there's little point in having any sort of discussion with you, is there. Oh well...

 

[loveallthingsitalian]

I think we are all agreed that these pies are more expensive than the normal supermarket ones. However in relation to Harrods, F&M and some delis I have been in some might consider them not overpriced. Since none of us have actually tasted one (and no one who has will reply to the forum) we dont know if they are worth it or not. Perhaps there are so good folk would rather have 1 of them than 3 of something else!

Not everyone who shops in Poundland needs financially to shop there, they either like the stock or are naturally not big spenders.

This is much the same as expensive face gloop (try telling Joe in the street that you paid £100 for a pot) or a LG bag.

It is a case of spending YOUR money on what YOU want. Im not sure that a Kipling bag which may be only £60 but when times 300 (as some of the viewers claim to have) isnt as, shall we say, over the top as the price for the pies.

As one poster said a smoker would easily spend this and Im sure they would agree that at least a pie is marginally less of a health risk.

Please will someone who has tasted these - let us know all about their value or not

 

[lynnonthelake]

And again, quotes taken out of context or just plain misquoting of what I've said. Just some simplistic, banal 'argument', banging the same drum just a little bit louder. Are you Alex Salmond? Anyway, there's little point in having any sort of discussion with you, is there. Oh well...

The Alex Salmond bit did make me laugh.
Lynn :mysmilie_15:

 

[Bettyboo]

I haven't watched any of these food hours just passing comment on what's been said on this Forum. I am very selective with what I watch on Q these days and as you said if you don't like a store don't go there.