Surprising? Not really.

[louise66]

I watch shark tank on youtube. An entrepreneur was on with his invention and, when asked how he would spend the investment, replied that he would do infomercials. Barbara Corcoran, the other female shark with Lori Greiner, who wasn't on this particular episode, mentioned that she had sold products on QVC USA and the regulations put in place by the channel are quite tough and rigorous. Any products which are returned, or don't sell, are returned to the supplier AT THEIR EXPENSE! So it is costing the Q nothing for the shipping back to them. Ms Corcoran implied that getting a product on to QVC isn't such a dream achievement, and QVC ensure they don't lose out financially, as the supplier is the one taking all of the risk. I wonder if the same guidelines are implemented by QVC UK? The 30 day mbg is extremely important to me, and is the reason I would prefer to buy from the Q, than elsewhere. Does it really bother the Q, how many people utilise the mbg, cos it is no worse off? This does elicit some sympathy from me, especially for those untried product suppliers. I wonder what they do with the stock, once the Q has dumped it back on them? QVC is THE big player in tv shopping and, consequently, can move the goalposts and dictate it's terms, as the seller feels they have a great opportunity, getting on the Q, that they will go along with whatever the Q demands. Having said all that, it is business and profit is paramount. It does not seem as if the whole procedure of getting your product on QVC is an easy one but, if you are successful, it could be a very lucrative one.
I suppose the difference financially between returning a Dyson, for example, and, say, something like Munchy Seeds is, comparitively, huge. Dyson is an international company and will be able, therefore, to bear the loss; MS would find it a lot more difficult to weather it, being only a fraction of the size.
It makes you think, perhaps we should consider this before ordering an item which we know we may decide to return, because it is unwanted.
Food for thought.

 

[lawrenson]

Hi,

yes, it is the same in the UK.

I used to know someone who supplied QVC, and he mentioned this.

Cheers,
karen

 

[Weathergirl]

I wonder if they have different contract conditions for those who are prepared to have all eggs in one basket and be exclusive to Q. John Lewis does, so does Liberty-I saw it on a documentary

 

[Akimbo]

I though it was common knowledge that the vendors (not QVC) stand the cost of returns?

Makes one wonder why Q make such a fuss about return levels and send out "The Letter".

 

[Vienna]

So all the supposition about Q charging such high delivery charges to cover the cost of returns under the 30 day mbg is a load of cobblers then. They obviously charge such high delivery charges simply for profit and not to cover the cost of returned items ?

 

[thatu]

As I've always suspected. No wonder the likes of Molton Brown and other makers of perishable products pulled out. They can't sell on an item that's been opened, so why is QVC selling on some bags and clothes etc which have obviously been used, as we've heard on this forum???? Are there different rules for different suppliers?

 

[donna255]

I remember long ago Alison Young saying on air, there were brands they would love to bring to QVC but the companies refused to agree to the 30 day MBG.

The Letter could be QVC not wanting the brands they do have starting to complain and wanting to pull out of QVC if they get too much stock returned to them. So QVC will keep an eye on customers who are serial returns.

There is also QVC US(not sure about QVC UK) investing in new brands and get exclusive contracts to sell only on QVC. That is what happened to Stacey and Models Prefer. The brand got really big on QVC US and UK, suddenly Stacey wanted to start selling in Ultra and other such stores in the US. QVC US said no and took her to court, the result was QVC had the rights to the name Models Prefer, Stacey rebranded to YBF and moved in the US to HSN. Not sure how she managed to return to QVC UK???

I wonder if that is the case with Mally? No idea if her brand is sold in stores in the US? Never heard it mentioned on the US beauty boards, only in connection with her being on QVC US.

 

[eilis]

[QUOTE)

I wonder if that is the case with Mally? No idea if her brand is sold in stores in the US? Never heard it mentioned on the US beauty boards, only in connection with her being on QVC US.[/QUOTE]

Mally sells in Henry Bendel's in New York, also Macy's, I think. Stocked in ULTA as well which is all over the US as far as I know.

 

[Bettyboo]

Why do Q have outlet stores if they send unsold and returned items back to vendor?

 

[amn]

Why do Q have outlet stores if they send unsold and returned items back to vendor?

I was just about to post the same point.

 

[AndiK]

If the vendor has to bear the cost of returns to them by QVC, maybe sometimes they tell QVC they don't want the returned item - then QVC can resell it in an outlet store or as a waitlist item. Of course, if the seller doesn't want the returned item, it is quite likely to be because it shows signs of use, hence the cases we hear about of people being sent obviously used bags, etc by QVC. And it still matters to QVC that some customers return more than QVC think they should because they are not getting the profit on the refunded item.

 

[Mazza]

I suppose in theory customer returns should or would go back to the vendor and unsold stock would go to an outlet. If Q order 100 and only sell 90, I don't believe the vendor would have to take the others back, although frankly I wouldn't put anything past Q at this stage. Of course some returns have just been looked at and returned and others have been used and abused over thirty days so they cannot have one rule for all. Would a vendor accept a returned item at their cost if it was still in unopened packaging? It seems like a minefield and I bet there is no consistent rule and Q just do what they want to make the most money. However if Q have no financial problem from returns, it does very much call into question their use of The Letter and high postage costs. Still, are we forumites surprised by all this?????? NO WE ARE NOT!!!!!

 

[Moth]

This is partly why I'm surprised QVC no longer want to know why we're sending items back. It I was a supplier to them, I'd jolly well want to know why products had been returned so I could do something about it, not just because they are "unwanted". That tells you nothing.

 

[reflexgirl]

Just a thought - given Q seem to have so many beauty brands now, you would think the returns rate would be very high, so as a supplier it must be a risky business because, unlike a handbag, you simply cannot re-sell opened beauty products. I can only assume the mark up on such things is so high that it is still worthwhile for beauty companies to sell on QVC.

 

[thatu]

It must be huge. After all, they just have to test the ingredients in bulk then mix them together and they have a perfect x amount of Decleor/LE/whatever. After that, it's sell, sell, sell. I'm thinking of the brand I use, Cyclax, which Sazza tells us in another thread used to be THE brand many years back, so they must still be making some profit out of it even at the price I pay now - 99p in Boyes for 200ml but you can still get it on the net for under £4. So the longer a product sells for, the more they make, and justify this by saying it's going into research.

 

[Wornoutcreditcard]

I don't feel sorry for QVC or the suppliers/vendors they should be prepared to weather the costs if they sell products which are below par or poor value for moneyed I have to return them. People and companies should work hard and provide a good service if they want to separate me from my hard earned cash. Surely that's business?

 

[loveallthingsitalian]

Mind you I would think that working with Q is not always the honeypot it is initially thought to be. Once you are in they would continually be trying to reduce your price and as we all know there is only one way to do that, reduce quality.

Vendors end up running their business as if they were owned by Q, having to put all production over to Q and if dropped then it has been very much the case of all the eggs in one basket.

Another thing Q do is take over the actual production using the brand name only(KH) so we all know who will be calling the shots in that situation. Like music and record companies I feel a lot of brands are just producing to fulfil contract obligations, get out and go back to making their own decisions. I think that is how Q have bought over so many of the ranges they stock now as their own brand.