Random musings and general banter.

[Dave]

According to the chap presenting - he said "It will pay for itself in a year" - How the heck does that work??

 

[Wirral70]

I cannot stand Paul Becque, i'm sick of hearing the repetitive 'we're in meltdown' and him banging on about how Ideal World have been around for nearly 16 years.

Well, Mr Cruise Liner, you used to scream that Bid had been around for nearly 14 years.

We've heard it ALL before, bore :mysmilie_59:

 

[Wirral70]

According to the chap presenting - he said "It will pay for itself in a year" - How the heck does that work??

This is only my opinion and I could certainly be wrong but if that was raised with The Advertising Standards Authority they might, at the very least, rule that such a claim should not be made without providing demonstrable qualification.

It's just a hunch but i'm guessing that wasn't provided? :mysmilie_59:

 

[shopperholic]

This is only my opinion and I could certainly be wrong but if that was raised with The Advertising Standards Authority they might, at the very least, rule that such a claim should not be made without providing demonstrable qualification.

It's just a hunch but i'm guessing that wasn't provided? :mysmilie_59:

That's true really, for me it wouldn't pay for itself because I don't buy coffee, so it would actually be me paying for it. Unless it gets a job and pays for itself, and the coffee to go in it, but I can't see it doing that, that machine looks a bit of a Diva. :mysmilie_17:

 

[Wirral70]

That's true really, for me it wouldn't pay for itself because I don't buy coffee, so it would actually be me paying for it. Unless it gets a job and pays for itself, and the coffee to go in it, but I can't see it doing that, that machine looks a bit of a Diva. :mysmilie_17:

Silly, throwaway claims like 'Hotel Quality' are one thing but claiming things will 'pay for themselves' are not on, not without clear proof, which in this case would appear to be quite a difficult thing to provide.

But we're not talking about an inconsiderable purchase here. We're talking about a £800 product that requires further money to be spent on Electricity, Water Bills, the cost of the Coffee and, potentially, Milk, then there's the filter cleaning products. If it was claimed as described (and I have little doubt it was) it would appear, possibly, to be a claim too far. Sadly i'm just starting to begin to get the feeling we can expect more of these types of claim going forward.

I hope that isn't the case because, make no mistake, they can expect to be held to account if we do.

 

[maymorganlondon]

According to the chap presenting - he said "It will pay for itself in a year" - How the heck does that work??

Hmm... I pay approximately £5 per week on coffees (excluding my millicano instant). So 52 weeks in the year brings me to £260. Yep - that's me paid for on my £800 coffee machine! Basically if you are paying £15 or under per week you are not paying for this in a year. You need to be a coffee addict, probably living with another coffee addict, to justify this sort of expenditure.

Plus, as Wirral says - there are the running costs which are not factored in. So it's going to be nearer the £20 per week coffee habit in order to pay for this machine and all the other costs associated (buying the coffee alone will be a significant expense - unless you want to put poor quality coffee in this "rolls royce" machine.

 

[Asa watching man]

Hi all New to the forum been an avid shopping tv viewer for a long time.

Ideal has shady practices much like Bid used to but dont think the "old" ideal crew dont get upto it just as much. Den, Gen and Loen are just as guilty in different ways imo.

As my username suggests i regularly file complaints to the ASA (fwiw a slap on the hand is the worse punishment they get). Ideal have had a fair share submitted by me with 50/50 whether they are upheld.

I have recently received news from the ASA that "we are recommending that both points of complaint should be upheld. " This is in regards to a massive complaint and breach imo from one of the TJCS regular culprits (most on that channel are fine from my experience). Is going to the ASA council next week

 

[Wirral70]

BIG BRODEL'S little brother is selling Mobility Scooters.

LITTLE BIG BRODEL :mysmilie_59:

 

[Wirral70]

Does anyone else find those clips featuring Elizabeth Grant a bit schlocky?

She says 'The Essence of Torricelumn comes from under the sea and I have to tell you it's extraordinary because, irrespective of what your little problem might be, it might be your skin tone, it might be blackheads, it might be black shadows under the eyes, it might be the number eleven that's driving you crazy, it might be lines across here, IT DOESN'T MATTER!. Whatever is bothering you forget it, pick up the Essence of Torricelumn'.

I don't know about you but i'm non the wiser what Torricelumn (a Registered Trademark) actually is. It doesn't sound very specific though, does it?

But i'm guessing, as it's Trademarked, that it's just a brand name for a mixture of widely available ingredients. Just like Ariel & Persil are brand names of Soap Powder that, let's face it, are much of a muchness.

But I have to say that the Elizabeth Grant guest (and if she's supposed to be an advert for these products i'll pass) is sailing dangerously close to trouble. She makes highly ambiguous, vague comparisons (in terms of price) to 'other' Snow Algae products that cost over £200, she never names them of course.

Very close indeed :mysmilie_59:

 

[Mommabear]

When they hit on a big seller, they really do it to the absolute death don't they? That Nicole dress is like the Made in Italy stuff. It's on all the ruddy time lately.

 

[Wirral70]

When they hit on a big seller, they really do it to the absolute death don't they? That Nicole dress is like the Made in Italy stuff. It's on all the ruddy time lately.

I guess it makes sense to have a small roster of products that you can buy in bulk, as tedious as it is I don't really have a problem with that.

It the way they sell them that is irksome, or worse. :mysmilie_59:

 

[historymystery]

What has always made me laugh is that shopping channels continually say "we have to be careful, everything we say has to be substantiated, we can't just say something that isn't true or we can be taken off-air" - and then they proceed to make wild claims! Do they always substantiate the claims they make - in my opinion no, they don't. I know a couple of the channels DID get in some trouble a few years back, for claiming that items were good investments likely to increase in value, which they are obviously not qualified to claim, but they were simply reprimanded as far as I know - OK there may have been a fine, but do they worry about that? No, IMO. Getting taken off air? I don't think so - the bottom line is that these channels may get a slapped wrist, but they know the ASA lack the 'teeth' to impose penalties that would make them stop and think before making wild claims - hence, in my view they don't care.

This is only my opinion and I could certainly be wrong but if that was raised with The Advertising Standards Authority they might, at the very least, rule that such a claim should not be made without providing demonstrable qualification.

It's just a hunch but i'm guessing that wasn't provided? :mysmilie_59:

 

[historymystery]

Asa, exactly - if there were stronger penalties, they would perhaps think twice before giving us a load of carp. IMO they step over the line because they know the penalties are derisory. Where's the deterrent not to do the same thing again? All the sanctimonious s$$t they spout about having to "be careful" is a joke, in my view.

Hi all New to the forum been an avid shopping tv viewer for a long time.

Ideal has shady practices much like Bid used to but dont think the "old" ideal crew dont get upto it just as much. Den, Gen and Loen are just as guilty in different ways imo.

As my username suggests i regularly file complaints to the ASA (fwiw a slap on the hand is the worse punishment they get). Ideal have had a fair share submitted by me with 50/50 whether they are upheld.

I have recently received news from the ASA that "we are recommending that both points of complaint should be upheld. " This is in regards to a massive complaint and breach imo from one of the TJCS regular culprits (most on that channel are fine from my experience). Is going to the ASA council next week

 

[Wirral70]

Asa, exactly - if there were stronger penalties, they would perhaps think twice before giving us a load of carp. IMO they step over the line because they know the penalties are derisory. Where's the deterrent not to do the same thing again? All the sanctimonious s$$t they spout about having to "be careful" is a joke, in my view.

The ASA are pretty toothless but a referral to OFCOM is pretty damaging, as it was for Bid.

Not damaging in itself but it was the referral that sparked the interest of the general media, including the national press and BBC Radio 4. But it most certainly rattled them, and boy could you tell they resented the attention. Peter Simon was outwardly contemptuous about the ASA, it was hilarious watching him trip up as they obviously screamed in his earpiece to correct himself with endless 'withdrawals'.

We never got to learn what would have materialised from the referral, it seemed they went bust before anything was announced.

For the record I'm not for one moment suggesting Ideal World are like Bid Shopping but I can definitely see a few similar traits, there's something ever so close to the knuckle about some things that are said, if you listen closely enough. But that they would employ the likes of Peter Simon could possibly suggest that compliance is, perhaps, something they don't take as seriously as they once did.

They needn't worry though, we take compliance as seriously as ever. Help can always be offered, as and when required and I hope they never need any such help but some guests need reigning in, and quickly.

I hate liars every bit as much as Howard Griffiths does, believe me! :mysmilie_59:

 

[Asa watching man]

They would be less toothless if more people complained (if people feel strongly enough to do so). It is quite straightforward though does take time to get to even the stage i am at now (2 months as they had to get evidence from Birmingham jewellers as an independent source).

They seem to take things more seriously when claims are made that are of a financial/investment nature (as is the current tjc complaint). In my experience the majority of TJC presenters are fine, the Ideal ones generally sail close to the wind a lot of the time but regularly put in disclaimers when asked.

These are the two main channels i watch so cant really comment on the others.

Althought i did catch QVC last night (for my sins) Seems they have nicked Jason Vale from ideal world and he was even more brash and annoying on QVC.

The subject of QVC deliberatley deleting negative reviews for products is one of the most important but very hard to police as it is in their hands

 

[maymorganlondon]

They would be less toothless if more people complained (if people feel strongly enough to do so). It is quite straightforward though does take time to get to even the stage i am at now (2 months as they had to get evidence from Birmingham jewellers as an independent source).

They seem to take things more seriously when claims are made that are of a financial/investment nature (as is the current tjc complaint). In my experience the majority of TJC presenters are fine, the Ideal ones generally sail close to the wind a lot of the time but regularly put in disclaimers when asked.

These are the two main channels i watch so cant really comment on the others.

Althought i did catch QVC last night (for my sins) Seems they have nicked Jason Vale from ideal world and he was even more brash and annoying on QVC.

The subject of QVC deliberatley deleting negative reviews for products is one of the most important but very hard to police as it is in their hands

I suspect companies might calculate that the income generated will be greater than any fine imposed. This is why it's no deterrent when the only sanction available or imposed is a relatively small fine.

One of the reasons you see so many "repeat offenders" in football is that fining a player a day's wages might sound like a lot of money to mere mortals, but it's a drop in the ocean to them.

The only way to make fines bite is to factor in the total income generated by the infringement (sales for the product during the period of the infringement) and consider the fine as starting at that amount, and go upwards for each repeat offense. Once there is no benefit to be gained from flying too close to the sun, it will be a less attractive option. Would seem pointless to broadcast for an hour and find that the sales have earned no money at all. "Clever" presenters wouldn't seem so clever in that light.

 

[Wirral70]

By the looks of things Ideal Wold will hang themselves if they don't do something to make their offer more attractive.

I hope they improve, I really do. QVC needs to improve too, some of their hosts are dreadful, many items are eye wateringly expensive, the CS sounds like it's having many problems and, yet again, they had their annual Green Seasons debacle.

Some people have even claimed the items they received are clearly returns that are being passed off as new.

Maybe live SellyTelly is struggling full stop?

 

[maymorganlondon]

QVC appear more slick and professional, but their website is appalling, and their social media out of control. The range of products is narrowing even if the number of brands in each "department" increases. Their postage is disgraceful as is their speed of processing refunds. Their nasty habit of not processing returns properly means that customers risk being presented with more than shop-soiled goods that they are expected to pay full price for. In a shop if you took a shop-soiled item to the counter to buy you could expect an immediate discount when you purchase the item, and I really think QVC should do this.

IW flog every successful product to death... and only go to air with a small proportion of what is available on their website. Their presenters and guests have below zero credibility. They sell their product range as if it was market-stall tat, which undermines the good products they do.

Both have a range of dodgy presenters, but I think IW rules on this one... they have plumbed the depths to find some of the least trustworthy-seeming presenters you could wish to find. But at the same time they still have some sense of fun (or maybe that's just Loen).

 

[Wirral70]

QVC appear more slick and professional, but their website is appalling, and their social media out of control. The range of products is narrowing even if the number of brands in each "department" increases. Their postage is disgraceful as is their speed of processing refunds. Their nasty habit of not processing returns properly means that customers risk being presented with more than shop-soiled goods that they are expected to pay full price for. In a shop if you took a shop-soiled item to the counter to buy you could expect an immediate discount when you purchase the item, and I really think QVC should do this.

IW flog every successful product to death... and only go to air with a small proportion of what is available on their website. Their presenters and guests have below zero credibility. They sell their product range as if it was market-stall tat, which undermines the good products they do.

Both have a range of dodgy presenters, but I think IW rules on this one... they have plumbed the depths to find some of the least trustworthy-seeming presenters you could wish to find. But at the same time they still have some sense of fun (or maybe that's just Loen).

My friend made an interesting comment about the presenters on Ideal world.

She said that maybe they deliberately hire presenters who come across as 'market stall' to plant a seed in some of the more gullible viewers minds that it's a low price, pile em high, sell em cheap outlet which of course it isn't.

But QVC do it too, just slightly less brashly. Debbie Flint is just about as hard faced, hard sell as they come and she'll plumb any depth to get a sale. And that stare! She's downright scary.

Then again, she's another ghoul that was on Bid :mysmilie_59:

 

[maymorganlondon]

Bid is clearly the hallmark of a certain quality and style of presenter.

It would seem they have to be absolutely puffed up with a sense of their own importance; have an utter intolerance of things not going their way; and have a willingness to say whatever is needed to get a sale, even if they have to be aggressive to do it.

I have no doubt that such sales tactics are successful... but for how long? They do not engender trust or loyalty. They alienate previously regular shoppers. There is not an inexhaustible supply of new customers. Disgruntled customers do share their experiences and warn others off.