Random musings and general banter.

[Duke of Cheese]

Similar to letting off stink bombs in cinemas, setting fire to ants and firing cap guns directly into people’s ears.

 

[galesgal57]

10, 15, 20 people seem to enjoy and actively and regularly participate posting on this thread. Other less regular members have posted that they enjoy reading it and it makes them laugh. Those are good enough reasons for keeping it going and in the style it presents itself in. Some people don’t like it. That’s fine too. It would be a boring world if we all felt the same about everything. I honestly don’t think it needs to be explained. If you can see the funny side in televisual misery, you might well be on the right track to taking the pebble from the collective hand, Glasshoppers.

Well said!

 

[Professor Branestawm]

Is this post an example of the 'satire/humour' type of post you mentioned a while back

Thank you for your polite response, even if the last sentence does smack a little of passive aggression. Again, I've never used words like 'petty' or 'ridiculous'. Why put words in my mouth and then respond to those words rather than what I actually wrote? It seems, and I mean this respectfully, a little over-defensive.

Why do I bother with this forum? I look on here for occasional updates on Ideal World as I quite enjoy watching from time to time. Believe it or not, but I actually agree about the 'heavy selling' technique employed by some presenters and it contrasts with the way others present things. But there's just a wall of continual moaning page after page that is often really unfair. So again I ask, and this is a general thing, why do you bother with watching? I'm told I've had it explained to me but I see nothing that qualifies as any kind of explanation.

I wouldn't wish to impact the way people post, not that I could if I did. I just genuinely do not understand. It doesn't, and never has, changed the way any aspect of shopping telly has been run, so why? Is it masochism? Or does posting stuff like 'Oh no, another four hours of Pedro flogging walking sticks again' actually cheer people up?

There was a time, many, many years ago, when IW was different, entertaining and had the semblance of a channel with a family ethos. Now, it’s TV, so no one really knows what’s true and what’s ’just for show’, but back in the days of Steve Whatley, Paul Lavers and Debbie Flint, it had that projected ethos - even if the presenters themselves weren’t like that (I really don’t know).
Since then, a channel I quite liked appears to have been taken over by presenters using a variety of very dubious selling techniques. I am, as some know, a qualified watchmaker, and I have a small repair shop. I despair of the half truths used to sell watches to vulnerable customers on this channel and/or its direct predecessors. Let me give you an example. When I’m told that a salesman who has commissioned drop-shipped Chinese watches with a pre-made design, screen-printed with his brand name, has designers who have spent years designing that watch, and that a brand which has a name similar to (or identical to) one that ceased trading many years ago is a continuation of that brand, well these are at the very best half-truths, and many would say are simply lies. They haven’t. Many, if not most, of the watches sold contain Chinese mechanisms with an average lifespan of a year, maybe two, and are referred to as heirlooms, or needing separate insurance, or are alluded to as being from the US, or Germany etc. The ‘brand’ may have an office, or a PO box elsewhere than China, but that - to me - is a half truth. And when I’m told that a customer has spent many thousands of pounds on these utterly terrible products, I despair. One of the iterations of IW used to regularly display watches with skipping, or missing hands, or watches clearly broken on delivery - which was usualy explained away as being prototypes. Drop shipped products don’t have prototypes, but they are often such poor quality that they arrive broken. And I don’t find it worthy of humour, just sadness that the presenters couldn’t even spot that before putting them on air, and that awful quality control was breezily explained away.
Now we see presenters blatantly using forum posters names, which I find unprofessional, childish and abusive - akin to stalking. It’s certainly disrespectful, which is strange behaviour indeed from a channel claiming a family ethos still.
Now a few posters have emerged, such as Paz, who may or may not be linked to IW, who offer nothing except criticism of those who point out the channel’s manifest failings. One has to wonder why, instead of defending the products, or if an employee perhaps sourcing some better ones, Paz would want to shut down all criticism of them, by criticising those who note their clear failings. Why is it important to Paz that we stop criticising the channel’s behaviour and tactics?
More specifically, Paz asked why we watch. Well, I believe that, for many of us, the level of unprofessionalism in the presenting style at IW is akin to watching two people share one parachute. It’s so bad, it’s compelling. And a small community that would much rather have fun discussing useful products, bargains we have seen, and the like, has coalesced around watching this televisual catastrophe - and just perhaps helping someone not to buy a product thinking it’s something that it isn’t. In short, Paz, the channel is so bad that it’s fun to watch, and if you can’t see how a fragrance called ‘gammon’ is both funny and unbelievable, then I’m not sure you actually have a sense of humour.

 

[Dr Quincy MkII]

Thank you for your polite response, even if the last sentence does smack a little of passive aggression. Again, I've never used words like 'petty' or 'ridiculous'. Why put words in my mouth and then respond to those words rather than what I actually wrote? It seems, and I mean this respectfully, a little over-defensive.

Why do I bother with this forum? I look on here for occasional updates on Ideal World as I quite enjoy watching from time to time. Believe it or not, but I actually agree about the 'heavy selling' technique employed by some presenters and it contrasts with the way others present things. But there's just a wall of continual moaning page after page that is often really unfair. So again I ask, and this is a general thing, why do you bother with watching? I'm told I've had it explained to me but I see nothing that qualifies as any kind of explanation.

I wouldn't wish to impact the way people post, not that I could if I did. I just genuinely do not understand. It doesn't, and never has, changed the way any aspect of shopping telly has been run, so why? Is it masochism? Or does posting stuff like 'Oh no, another four hours of Pedro flogging walking sticks again' actually cheer people up?

Commentary on anything comes in ebs and flows. When it's good, good comments come forth, when it's bad a piss taking session usually follows. Now coming from a sarcastic Irish perspective we tend to use humour all the time. If Ideal World produced professional content there would be less to take the piss out of. Now if you personally don't grasp the numerous explanations on here from the people who are making the comments you find so puzzling, there's not much more to say. The forum is what it is a 'forum' to vent frustrations about the subject matter or give praise and generally constructive feedback when is is earned. I think you're wrong about it not having any effect on Shopping TV. If you look at Rob Locke and his contributions and requests for feedback on this very forum, you'd realise your own ignorance on this side of things. But whether you like it or not, or you feel people are putting words in your mouth by reading between the lines of your queries, you are telling us to be quiet and go away. If we hate it so much why bother? All of that has been answered. We are allowed to speak our minds and (try) and be funny even if it doesn't necessarily amuse everyone.

 

[User 23988]

It’s car crash tv and getting worse especially when the bid crew are on!
The bid mob were part of the collective failure of IW2,the failure continues because they never change!
If people want all sweetness and light tune into QVC they have many detractors also,shopping tv is dead the juggernaut of online shopping has killed it,cheaper better quality,faster delivery,no postage charges!
As for the student production staff lifting user names off this forum,go figure it out they deserved to be called out. Dr Lobitov would be proud of you quick fetch the ointment.

 

[Keep Going]

There was a time, many, many years ago, when IW was different, entertaining and had the semblance of a channel with a family ethos. Now, it’s TV, so no one really knows what’s true and what’s ’just for show’, but back in the days of Steve Whatley, Paul Lavers and Debbie Flint, it had that projected ethos - even if the presenters themselves weren’t like that (I really don’t know).
Since then, a channel I quite liked appears to have been taken over by presenters using a variety of very dubious selling techniques. I am, as some know, a qualified watchmaker, and I have a small repair shop. I despair of the half truths used to sell watches to vulnerable customers on this channel and/or its direct predecessors. Let me give you an example. When I’m told that a salesman who has commissioned drop-shipped Chinese watches with a pre-made design, screen-printed with his brand name, has designers who have spent years designing that watch, and that a brand which has a name similar to (or identical to) one that ceased trading many years ago is a continuation of that brand, well these are at the very best half-truths, and many would say are simply lies. They haven’t. Many, if not most, of the watches sold contain Chinese mechanisms with an average lifespan of a year, maybe two, and are referred to as heirlooms, or needing separate insurance, or are alluded to as being from the US, or Germany etc. The ‘brand’ may have an office, or a PO box elsewhere than China, but that - to me - is a half truth. And when I’m told that a customer has spent many thousands of pounds on these utterly terrible products, I despair. One of the iterations of IW used to regularly display watches with skipping, or missing hands, or watches clearly broken on delivery - which was usualy explained away as being prototypes. Drop shipped products don’t have prototypes, but they are often such poor quality that they arrive broken. And I don’t find it worthy of humour, just sadness that the presenters couldn’t even spot that before putting them on air, and that awful quality control was breezily explained away.
Now we see presenters blatantly using forum posters names, which I find unprofessional, childish and abusive - akin to stalking. It’s certainly disrespectful, which is strange behaviour indeed from a channel claiming a family ethos still.
Now a few posters have emerged, such as Paz, who may or may not be linked to IW, who offer nothing except criticism of those who point out the channel’s manifest failings. One has to wonder why, instead of defending the products, or if an employee perhaps sourcing some better ones, Paz would want to shut down all criticism of them, by criticising those who note their clear failings. Why is it important to Paz that we stop criticising the channel’s behaviour and tactics?
More specifically, Paz asked why we watch. Well, I believe that, for many of us, the level of unprofessionalism in the presenting style at IW is akin to watching two people share one parachute. It’s so bad, it’s compelling. And a small community that would much rather have fun discussing useful products, bargains we have seen, and the like, has coalesced around watching this televisual catastrophe - and just perhaps helping someone not to buy a product thinking it’s something that it isn’t. In short, Paz, the channel is so bad that it’s fun to watch, and if you can’t see how a fragrance called ‘gammon’ is both funny and unbelievable, then I’m not sure you actually have a sense of humour.

Superb post......says all I couldnt put into words. Thanks.

 

[Keep Going]

Its interesting to read Paz is so adament stating such lines with great confidence like "Posting on forums has never and will never change the way a shopping tv channel operates" i'd be very interesting to see proof of this? I'd genuinely be interested to get detail on this.

 

[Deleted member 17635]

Commentary on anything comes in ebs and flows. When it's good, good comments come forth, when it's bad a piss taking session usually follows. Now coming from a sarcastic Irish perspective we tend to use humour all the time. If Ideal World produced professional content there would be less to take the piss out of. Now if you personally don't grasp the numerous explanations on here from the people who are making the comments you find so puzzling, there's not much more to say. The forum is what it is a 'forum' to vent frustrations about the subject matter or give praise and generally constructive feedback when is is earned. I think you're wrong about it not having any effect on Shopping TV. If you look at Rob Locke and his contributions and requests for feedback on this very forum, you'd realise your own ignorance on this side of things. But whether you like it or not, or you feel people are putting words in your mouth by reading between the lines of your queries, you are telling us to be quiet and go away. If we hate it so much why bother? All of that has been answered. We are allowed to speak our minds and (try) and be funny even if it doesn't necessarily amuse everyone.

Surely, by that token, I'm allowed to speak my mind too? You mention Rob Locke. Strange then when he actually took the time to post and confront those whose daily posts complain about a business he is/was part of, suddenly posters here can't wait to tell him what a great bloke he is! What might we call that if we're being polite? Hypocrisy? Psychiphancy? Cowardice? So then, if Peter Simon or Mike Mason started posting here, you'd all suddenly be their best friends too? After all, we're not allowed to slag off other posters are we?

 

[Deleted member 17635]

Its interesting to read Paz is so adament stating such lines with great confidence like "Posting on forums has never and will never change the way a shopping tv channel operates" i'd be very interesting to see proof of this? I'd genuinely be interested to get detail on this.

Do you feel that the critical contributions of yourself or others here have changed anything regarding shopping television? Likewise, if you do, I'd like to see proof of this.

 

[Deleted member 17635]

There was a time, many, many years ago, when IW was different, entertaining and had the semblance of a channel with a family ethos. Now, it’s TV, so no one really knows what’s true and what’s ’just for show’, but back in the days of Steve Whatley, Paul Lavers and Debbie Flint, it had that projected ethos - even if the presenters themselves weren’t like that (I really don’t know).
Since then, a channel I quite liked appears to have been taken over by presenters using a variety of very dubious selling techniques. I am, as some know, a qualified watchmaker, and I have a small repair shop. I despair of the half truths used to sell watches to vulnerable customers on this channel and/or its direct predecessors. Let me give you an example. When I’m told that a salesman who has commissioned drop-shipped Chinese watches with a pre-made design, screen-printed with his brand name, has designers who have spent years designing that watch, and that a brand which has a name similar to (or identical to) one that ceased trading many years ago is a continuation of that brand, well these are at the very best half-truths, and many would say are simply lies. They haven’t. Many, if not most, of the watches sold contain Chinese mechanisms with an average lifespan of a year, maybe two, and are referred to as heirlooms, or needing separate insurance, or are alluded to as being from the US, or Germany etc. The ‘brand’ may have an office, or a PO box elsewhere than China, but that - to me - is a half truth. And when I’m told that a customer has spent many thousands of pounds on these utterly terrible products, I despair. One of the iterations of IW used to regularly display watches with skipping, or missing hands, or watches clearly broken on delivery - which was usualy explained away as being prototypes. Drop shipped products don’t have prototypes, but they are often such poor quality that they arrive broken. And I don’t find it worthy of humour, just sadness that the presenters couldn’t even spot that before putting them on air, and that awful quality control was breezily explained away.
Now we see presenters blatantly using forum posters names, which I find unprofessional, childish and abusive - akin to stalking. It’s certainly disrespectful, which is strange behaviour indeed from a channel claiming a family ethos still.
Now a few posters have emerged, such as Paz, who may or may not be linked to IW, who offer nothing except criticism of those who point out the channel’s manifest failings. One has to wonder why, instead of defending the products, or if an employee perhaps sourcing some better ones, Paz would want to shut down all criticism of them, by criticising those who note their clear failings. Why is it important to Paz that we stop criticising the channel’s behaviour and tactics?
More specifically, Paz asked why we watch. Well, I believe that, for many of us, the level of unprofessionalism in the presenting style at IW is akin to watching two people share one parachute. It’s so bad, it’s compelling. And a small community that would much rather have fun discussing useful products, bargains we have seen, and the like, has coalesced around watching this televisual catastrophe - and just perhaps helping someone not to buy a product thinking it’s something that it isn’t. In short, Paz, the channel is so bad that it’s fun to watch, and if you can’t see how a fragrance called ‘gammon’ is both funny and unbelievable, then I’m not sure you actually have a sense of humour.

I have no interest whether or not you criticise the channel's behaviour and tactics, believe it or not. I would just love to know why you enjoy it so much. So bad it's good. Yep, I can see that. But all day, every day? For years? Are there not other things to get steamed up about?

And you're right, if I question one poster's claim that this place extols a kind of cynical, humorous satire like Have I Got News For You, I can't possibly have a sense of humour. But (again) believe it or not, I find a fragrance called Gammon pretty hilarious too!

 

[Duke of Cheese]

There was a time, many, many years ago, when IW was different, entertaining and had the semblance of a channel with a family ethos. Now, it’s TV, so no one really knows what’s true and what’s ’just for show’, but back in the days of Steve Whatley, Paul Lavers and Debbie Flint, it had that projected ethos - even if the presenters themselves weren’t like that (I really don’t know).
Since then, a channel I quite liked appears to have been taken over by presenters using a variety of very dubious selling techniques. I am, as some know, a qualified watchmaker, and I have a small repair shop. I despair of the half truths used to sell watches to vulnerable customers on this channel and/or its direct predecessors. Let me give you an example. When I’m told that a salesman who has commissioned drop-shipped Chinese watches with a pre-made design, screen-printed with his brand name, has designers who have spent years designing that watch, and that a brand which has a name similar to (or identical to) one that ceased trading many years ago is a continuation of that brand, well these are at the very best half-truths, and many would say are simply lies. They haven’t. Many, if not most, of the watches sold contain Chinese mechanisms with an average lifespan of a year, maybe two, and are referred to as heirlooms, or needing separate insurance, or are alluded to as being from the US, or Germany etc. The ‘brand’ may have an office, or a PO box elsewhere than China, but that - to me - is a half truth. And when I’m told that a customer has spent many thousands of pounds on these utterly terrible products, I despair. One of the iterations of IW used to regularly display watches with skipping, or missing hands, or watches clearly broken on delivery - which was usualy explained away as being prototypes. Drop shipped products don’t have prototypes, but they are often such poor quality that they arrive broken. And I don’t find it worthy of humour, just sadness that the presenters couldn’t even spot that before putting them on air, and that awful quality control was breezily explained away.
Now we see presenters blatantly using forum posters names, which I find unprofessional, childish and abusive - akin to stalking. It’s certainly disrespectful, which is strange behaviour indeed from a channel claiming a family ethos still.
Now a few posters have emerged, such as Paz, who may or may not be linked to IW, who offer nothing except criticism of those who point out the channel’s manifest failings. One has to wonder why, instead of defending the products, or if an employee perhaps sourcing some better ones, Paz would want to shut down all criticism of them, by criticising those who note their clear failings. Why is it important to Paz that we stop criticising the channel’s behaviour and tactics?
More specifically, Paz asked why we watch. Well, I believe that, for many of us, the level of unprofessionalism in the presenting style at IW is akin to watching two people share one parachute. It’s so bad, it’s compelling. And a small community that would much rather have fun discussing useful products, bargains we have seen, and the like, has coalesced around watching this televisual catastrophe - and just perhaps helping someone not to buy a product thinking it’s something that it isn’t. In short, Paz, the channel is so bad that it’s fun to watch, and if you can’t see how a fragrance called ‘gammon’ is both funny and unbelievable, then I’m not sure you actually have a sense of humour.

Well said, Professor. Well said.

 

[Keep Going]

Do you feel that the critical contributions of yourself or others here have changed anything regarding shopping television? Likewise, if you do, I'd like to see proof of this.

Paz, the devil is in the detail though, YOU made the statement not me.

To answer you I dont know if my "critical contributions" have made any impact, but as I always have said, we are all free to air our opinions.

 

[Professor Branestawm]

Do you feel that the critical contributions of yourself or others here have changed anything regarding shopping television? Likewise, if you do, I'd like to see proof of this.

It’s always difficult, if not actually impossible, for an outsider to categorically state what prompted a change, and IW do seem to be on a race to the bottom, but there are some indications that others here have had a real and positive effect, yes.
For example, looking back through the postings, I read that some were, understandably, upset by the fact that flexi payments were often unclear. Peter, in particular, had a habit of just saying ‘you can get it for £x’ - where £x is the first of 3 flexi payments. Now that may be strictly true in the sense that you can get it to your house for that- but you won’t be keeping it if you only pay that.
Some complained about it. And some raised it with the ASA. And it seems that the ASA didn’t think that trivial or flippant at all, because shortly afterwards the flexi payments were being made clear.
Surely that’s a positive thing? And like most things it has slipped back again a few times - and has been raised and rectified again.
Just one trivial example. But not hard to find.

 

[Dr Quincy MkII]

Surely, by that token, I'm allowed to speak my mind too? You mention Rob Locke. Strange then when he actually took the time to post and confront those whose daily posts complain about a business he is/was part of, suddenly posters here can't wait to tell him what a great bloke he is! What might we call that if we're being polite? Hypocrisy? Psychiphancy? Cowardice? So then, if Peter Simon or Mike Mason started posting here, you'd all suddenly be their best friends too? After all, we're not allowed to slag off other posters are we?

He is willingly open to criticism. His post was met with gratitude because he was being professional. He took the time to address the forum not make accusations. He is more concerned with running a decent operation, getting it right. Not blaming others or digging his heels in. The people that responded did so in good faith and nobody said they wouldn't criticise. In fact many people did criticise. You come across like one of those restaurant owners on Kitchen Nightmares who is deluded and in denial about their business that don't read online reviews (which is essential for good customer service). Bury your head in the sand about it. Pretend things are going great. Shut down critics

 

[Latearrival]

Ive only one comment to make here, it’s not ment to be rude
Why so many questions, why do the answers no matter how well given only lead to yet more questions.
my reasons are my own
my thoughts are my own
it almost sounds like someone gathering information in order to write either a sociological or psychological dissertation
ive nothing further to add

 

[Duke of Cheese]

I recall (I may be wrong) Rob Locke posted spontaneously. I don’t remember him coming on miffed, wanting to ‘have it out’ with people. He seemed to genuinely want to engage, to have a constructive exchange of views. He was received well on that basis, and I think people responded to him in a reciprocal manner. He didn’t arrive under a different ID, being accusing and defensive, but under his own name. He didn’t borrow a few forum usernames and base his new channel’s ‘viewer’ messages around that. He was open and receptive to criticism, as was Grant, the tech guy. You respect people like that and generally respond well to them. Somebody from Ideal World could try similar. They may be pleasantly surprised at the reaction they get.

 

[Kit10]

10, 15, 20 people seem to enjoy and actively and regularly participate posting on this thread. Other less regular members have posted that they enjoy reading it and it makes them laugh. Those are good enough reasons for keeping it going and in the style it presents itself in. Some people don’t like it. That’s fine too. It would be a boring world if we all felt the same about everything. I honestly don’t think it needs to be explained. If you can see the funny side in televisual misery, you might well be on the right track to taking the pebble from the collective hand, Glasshoppers.

Well said, DOC2! I remember some time ago someone responded to a post of mine saying that I was very negative. I took it to heart, and didn’t post for a long time. Eventually I decided that I enjoyed being on here and that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I missed the fun. And that’s the point, we’re not going to change the world, but we can give each other a little giggle along the way

 

[JeepSwensonfan]

I want them to say 'ol Jeep has bought a product. I have about 50 of their watches.

 

[Duke of Cheese]

Well said, DOC2! I remember some time ago someone responded to a post of mine saying that I was very negative. I took it to heart, and didn’t post for a long time. Eventually I decided that I enjoyed being on here and that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I missed the fun. And that’s the point, we’re not going to change the world, but we can give each other a little giggle along the way

I did the same. Quite recently I contacted the Forum people and asked them to delete my identity because I became embroiled in a similar situation. But after a couple of days, I decided that I still
had decent contributions to make, enjoyed being here overall, and decided to reapply to join. Nothing furtive or secretive in me rejoining, and I think it is pretty obvious working out my previous username from this one. I don’t think people should be forced off the forum for their views – either negative or positive.

 

[galesgal57]

'Ti's the season of goodwill, no need for any unpleasantness. We all seem to get along well, and make each other laugh, especially you DOC2.