Paul Turner - Senior Marketing Manager at QVC UK

[Tinkerbelle]

The difference between Facebook and here is that QVC choose to set up the Facebook page. They decided it was going to be part of their business social media strategy. They have some degree of control over it.

Here they have no power to answer or moderate. It's something completely beyond their control. Except they can try to control a revenue stream and therefore control the site by stealth. They didn't choose this as part of their social media strategy.

They're clearly not going to communicate with Graham or they would have done so. Whether that's right or wrong is a moot point now. They've done what they've done.

Graham has two choices. He can find other revenue streams or not. Everyone who runs a small business potentially faces the same issues. When one revenue stream dies you must find another to survive. It's not easy but it can be done.

A lot has been said about how much money the site makes for QVC but the important thing is how much money this removes from Graham and how he can replace that lost revenue and fast. I don't want to know how much that money is but I think the focus is slightly skewed.

 

[donna255]

I agree Tinkerbelle. What I was going to add but something came up.

Okay, Mr.Franks comes across the vitriol against his wife on st.com. Hey Paul have you seen this, what your going to do about the bullying of my wife? She had a contract with you, QVC are her employer, what are you going to do about it? You advertise on this site as does many of your brands.

On Facebook some months back there was a conversation which started, someone stated JF mentioned something about online bullying. They laughed and said we are not bullying her if she can't take it etc. I remember it and though oh!!!!

So I really am thinking something down the line has gone on. Whether it is just her, we don't know? I am not a fan of JF, but she doesn't bother me mainly I don't pay much attention to her. But she does get pulled up for loving everything etc. Fawning over the guests, Chuntley does the same. She is paid to sell the stuff at the end of the day, its her job. CHuntley is just as bad yet gets let off with it, weather because she is pettier etc, who knows?

I can't see QVC doing this over some comments about bad products, the postage(they ignore that and will continue to do so), slow posting, reused goods going out. All those have gone on for years on here.

 

[BurlyBeaR]

I agree Donna, and I think it's interesting that on boards like DIgital Spy where some truly hideous things are said about people, eg the X factor contestants, there are also "appreciation threads" where only positive comments and discussion are allowed. I would be the last person to suggest harsher moderation or censorship, but the first to promote balance. It's amazing how in a tirade of negativity one tiny comment like "well I like her" can quickly gather support. People with all types of views are out there reading but may feel intimidated about posting positive comments.

Even if a shift in focus from 90% negative to a more balanced view of QVC didn't help with G's problem, it would still be a good thing for the forum. Lots of people aren't comfortable with the negativity.

This is not a hard thing to do, but it has to be driven by admin, after which members will get onboard. Not the other way round.

 

[Vienna]

You may not like this but for all the negative points written by the members on here nothing has damaged the credibility of the site more than Graham himself. Posting the pics of his self harming, beginning the thread against Q in the first place, posting on FB and the general unproffessional way he`s managed things. We all sympathise with Graham and if the thread had been posted in the drop everything including his distress would have been away from the prying eyes of Q. As it is, its probably convinced Q they did the right thing. So if moderation is to be tightened and negativity supposedly reduced, then it needs to begin at the top downwards. Our comments about JF`s outfits or anything else will have created far less harm than someone begging Q for a response or stating their life has ended or threatening self harm on a public forum. Now hate me if you like .....

 

[Graham]

You may not like this but for all the negative points written by the members on here nothing has damaged the credibility of the site more than Graham himself. Posting the pics of his self harming, beginning the thread against Q in the first place, posting on FB and the general unproffessional way he`s managed things. We all sympathise with Graham and if the thread had been posted in the drop everything including his distress would have been away from the prying eyes of Q. As it is, its probably convinced Q they did the right thing. So if moderation is to be tightened and negativity supposedly reduced, then it needs to begin at the top downwards. Our comments about JF`s outfits or anything else will have created far less harm than someone begging Q for a response or stating their life has ended or threatening self harm on a public forum. Now hate me if you like .....

Don't hate you at all but sadly QVCUK pushed me right to the edge and the results ended up on here. I make no apologies for being an open book and dont think I will ever change.

 

[LE lover]

firstly Vienna i don't think anyone could hate you. Secondly i wholeheartedly agree that these threads should be in the drop.I've said that before, having them here is just not helping the cause imo and not making Graham appear in a particularly positive light.
I also think Vienna, Donna and Burlz , have between them, raised some excellent points and suggestions. Graham please think very carefully about what's been said by them it really does make sense.

We all care about you but sometimes some tough love is needed. It comes from a good place with your best interests at heart.

 

[Vienna]

Don't hate you at all but sadly QVCUK pushed me right to the edge and the results ended up on here. I make no apologies for being an open book and dont think I will ever change.

Fair enough Graham and that is your right but being allowed to be an open book works both ways. You cannot be allowed to say what you think and yet not allow us to do the same by enforcing moderation of what you or the other mods deem to be negative remarks. It can`t be do as I say, not as I do. That is the point I was trying to make, nothing against you personally cos my heart goes out to you, it truly does.

 

[petpixie]

Don't hate you at all but sadly QVCUK pushed me right to the edge and the results ended up on here. I make no apologies for being an open book and dont think I will ever change.

And I don't think you should Graham. In this age of everybody trying to be something they're not it's very refreshing that you're open and honest and true to yourself. How many people can honestly say that? It's just a damn shame you've come up against big business at their worst. I'm totally disgusted with their treatment of you and the stonewalling you're experiencing and I can feel your frustration. I just hope you have a good support network around you to help you get through this xx

 

[SparklyBarbs]

Graham i'm an open book myself so i can sympathise. But sometimes we all have to make choices to move on,
and accept things have happened and you can't change it. I'm a great believer in fate, and in my life i've had to
make changes and cut links etc etc, and had a lot of bad things happen, but i had to take control of my life and
decide what to do. No one could do it for me. If the site is causing you problems, and i really think you can't
continue to run it moneywise, maybe you should either decide to look at other routes to raise money or close the
site and start your life again. I know this means a lot to you, but you have started your life again after a previous
horrific tragedy, so you can do it again. But i don't think you're really listening to anyone. You think QVC are going
to come charging in and rescue the site, and start replying to you. They treated you really badly, taking the rug from
under you without having the decency to inform you face to face, so thats the sort of firm you're dealing with. Much as
i love this forum, its not worth someones health and wellbeing. Put yourself first Graham x

 

[Nora]

Don't hate you at all but sadly QVCUK pushed me right to the edge and the results ended up on here. I make no apologies for being an open book and dont think I will ever change.

I have took a step back and not replied to these comments but have liked/thanked certain ones, but Graham at the end of the day only YOU can help YOU. I hope you take note of the useful information that has been put before you and that you at least use parts if it because if you don't then as much as I feel for you at the end of the day you may lose the affection and care that people on this site have for you. I don't mean to belittle your situation at all, but there is only so much patience that people have. Again good luck and I hope things turn out for the best for you.

 

[DebraJane]

We all express things in our own way so although I wouldnt have expressed it quite like that Vienna (and I respect your post) I do agree with the crux of what you say, and often wonder why more use isn't made of the drop to protect the more personal details of some of the members posts. I appreciate that G was/is hurting and wants Q and others to know but I personally dont think that it's in his best interests.

But it isn't all one-way, so I agree with what Burlz and Donna have also said - there's a line between voicing an opinion and what will be seen as on line bullying. I don't think the line is that fine but do see it being crossed which is worrying and once a negative view is posted it does seem to gather pace a bit like a boulder rolling down hill and on occasions becomes deeply personal.

I know some forum members don't like to be straight jacketed but I would welcome a little more balance but feel that is a joint admin/FM responsibility, something we as members can help implement.

 

[Mary Ashley]

For Graham now, surely it's all about generating other income. There are many products featured on both QVC & Ideal World, whose companies could be interested. Also, non tv companies like M&S, Currys, Carphone Warehouse, Google Play and so on could be approached. It is important that Graham's eggs aren't all in one basket, especially if that basket is QVC. Rather than being in victim mode, (sorry Graham) it's time to get into stick it to 'em mode. Why court QVC? Making your site completely financially independant of them so you can quietly give them the finger is the best medicine. Then we can say whatever we want about them and there is nothing they can do about it. Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.

 

[Sazza]

For what it's worth, I agree with Weathergirl that Graham isn't emotionally up to a fight at the moment - we've all seen the terrible toll this has taken on him - and perhaps now would be a good time for Sazza and other moderators to take the helm.

They will have Graham's best interests at heart and understand the intricacies of the situation with QVC and the affiliate company better than any of us. They also know how to contact us away from this forum should the need to rally the troops arise.

ST will always be Graham's baby and he will be at the helm, he is the administrator of ST and always will be!

The difference between Facebook and here is that QVC choose to set up the Facebook page. They decided it was going to be part of their business social media strategy. They have some degree of control over it.

Here they have no power to answer or moderate. It's something completely beyond their control. Except they can try to control a revenue stream and therefore control the site by stealth. They didn't choose this as part of their social media strategy.

They're clearly not going to communicate with Graham or they would have done so. Whether that's right or wrong is a moot point now. They've done what they've done.

Graham has two choices. He can find other revenue streams or not. Everyone who runs a small business potentially faces the same issues. When one revenue stream dies you must find another to survive. It's not easy but it can be done.

A lot has been said about how much money the site makes for QVC but the important thing is how much money this removes from Graham and how he can replace that lost revenue and fast. I don't want to know how much that money is but I think the focus is slightly skewed.

Spot on, Graham needs a way to replace lost revenue, QVC is big enough to lose sales generated via this site but ST needed the revenue so this now needs to be replaced, somehow!

 

[Disenchanted]

ST will always be Graham's baby and he will be at the helm, he is the administrator of ST and always will be!

Sorry Sazza - I didn't exactly mean a hostile takeover but Graham is clearly emotionally fragile at the moment and not, perhaps, in the best frame of mind to be making decisions on his own. I think that's pretty much what we all feel.

 

[Sazza]

Sorry Sazza - I didn't exactly mean a hostile takeover but Graham is clearly emotionally fragile at the moment and not, perhaps, in the best frame of mind to be making decisions on his own. I think that's pretty much what we all feel.

Graham is an emotional person, always has been and probably always will be.

Bottom line is ST needs revenue to keep going and that is why Graham is so upset at QVC acting the way they have as their actions have pulled the plug on a huge chunk of revenue.

 

[BurlyBeaR]

Ok so if building bridges isn't going to be the way forward, and new revenue streams are what's required there's an obvious way forward. Widen ST.com's remit to high street and Internet retail channels. Get a new domain name. Www.shoppingeverything.com is available. Then st.com can be one arm of a website with broader appeal.

From what I know the only forum of any significance where you can go to discuss, praise or slag off marks and spencer, Currys, amazon, McDonald's or ANY of the retailers is Moneysavingexpert. And that's not a dedicated shopping site, it's remit is enormous. There has to be room for another discussion board, especially when you already have a captive audience of avid shoppers as a base from which to start.

Isn't there an opportunity there? And if not then I'm sure there are many more ideas that may be more suitable. I hope Graham can start thinking and planning a future instead of reflecting on the past.

 

[DebraJane]

Thanks Burlz - ST needs to snap up quick or move your post from here to some where less visible whilst Graham considers otherwise someone else will beat ST to it.

 

[scbu]

Do Ideal world and the other shopping channels still support this forum financially or was it only ever QVC? If they do Iw especially gets all negative posts on here so why do they still support i but the biggest shopping channel feels it cant ?I also agree there have been some great ideas to what can be done next but i will get slated but some of the people giving them ive personally seen posts from them being negative about presenters ( yes ive made comments to so im not innocent either). I think personally saying if you dont like someones outfit or hair style or there hard selling techniques is acceptable however theres certain presenters who get ripped to shreads on here Jill franks and Catherine Huntley along with anna and carmel probably get it the worse. I like the idea of widening the forum but including a high street section where we could let each other know what bargains we have found in the high street, Maybe even a help section where lets say someone has some kind sf skin concern or technical problem other forum members could give advice of what they have used and if its work. Mayb and tried and tested section where if uve tried a product u could write what you think about a certain product, as we all know that reviews on line are not always shown if uve had a bad experience with it.

 

[Sacha]

Ok so if building bridges isn't going to be the way forward, and new revenue streams are what's required there's an obvious way forward. Widen ST.com's remit to high street and Internet retail channels. Get a new domain name. Www.shoppingeverything.com is available. Then st.com can be one arm of a website with broader appeal.

From what I know the only forum of any significance where you can go to discuss, praise or slag off marks and spencer, Currys, amazon, McDonald's or ANY of the retailers is Moneysavingexpert. And that's not a dedicated shopping site, it's remit is enormous. There has to be room for another discussion board, especially when you already have a captive audience of avid shoppers as a base from which to start.

Isn't there an opportunity there? And if not then I'm sure there are many more ideas that may be more suitable. I hope Graham can start thinking and planning a future instead of reflecting on the past.

Good suggestion to broaden the site's remit as we all know internet shopping is provided by just about every retailer these days and hopefully to get sponsorship from some of the major players. I would include Amazon on that list and would be happy to contribute to a forum added to our list.

Btw I did a quick check and see that 'shoppingtellyplus' is available as a domain name.

 

[Capirossi]

Burlz for admin!!!

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2