What makes a good presenter?

[Miss Ellie]

Reading numerous derogatory comments about various presenters, I wondered what people thought made a good presenter. For me a good presenter is someone who seems genuinely interested in the product they are selling, is knowledgeable, and gives you all the relevant points about the item as well as covering any aspects of it a viewer might have a question about.

 

[Brissles]

I have replied to this under another thread with the same topic.

 

[loveallthingsitalian]

Brissles has it in one!

Miss Ellie i'm afraid to say that I imagine you and I have totally opposing views of a good presenter but that is totaly ok as we should all be able to give our opinions.

Julia - 99% good - gets a bit giddy at times
Dale - 85% good -always liked him but of late has got a bit hard sell
Clare S - 75% good - bit giddy but always well turned out and prepared
Charlie - 50% good - far to many stock phrases but does his homework


If I was in charge the following would get their P45 pronto:

Chuntley
Sara G
Marverine
Del Boy Flint

The rest are pretty woeful but can watch with no sound if necessary.

Over the years either they have got worse or my tolerance levels have dropped to zero.

 

[Dave]

Brissles has it in one!

Miss Ellie i'm afraid to say that I imagine you and I have totally opposing views of a good presenter but that is totaly ok as we should all be able to give our opinions.

Julia - 99% good - gets a bit giddy at times
Dale - 85% good -always liked him but of late has got a bit hard sell
Clare S - 75% good - bit giddy but always well turned out and prepared
Charlie - 50% good - far to many stock phrases but does his homework


If I was in charge the following would get their P45 pronto:

Chuntley
Sara G
Marverine
Del Boy Flint

The rest are pretty woeful but can watch with no sound if necessary.

Over the years either they have got worse or my tolerance levels have dropped to zero.

Just to clear things up!
In view of other threads referring to "Lawyers watching", I would like to say the following. This may or may not be my personal opinion, I have the right to say it, albeit in reference to one or more presenters who may or may not be my favourite. Many contributors to the forum have opposing views, that is plainly obvious, and to be honest, the humour filled banter sometimes makes me roar with laughter. Long may it continue! One presenter who for legal reasons I am unable to identify may (or may not) be going overseas and may have (or not) been the focus of some comments. Some, with regards to the presenting style, and connection (or not) to some auction or other.
Can we all agree that there are those who like or dislike certain presenters, and it is now plainly obvious some contributors who are defending the democratic rights of contributors of this forum to have an opinion. The opposing views are also welcome, but the threads are becoming more about the contributors comments, and not the primary reason for adding our thoughts.
In the last week or so, there has been a contrary view point that some (or not) may believe a connection to a "certain" presenter previously mentioned has been trying to upset the ST forum?
The place for the dedicated luvvy dovey butt kissers is on another forum, twitter, blog, faceache etc etc.

The above may or may not have been vetted by a legal department, and may or may not be my own thoughts. I may have even been forced to write this. This should be fun, and we should remember why we are all members.
Anyhoo - morning all, rant over, - normal conditions apply.:mysmilie_12:

 

[Craftalot]

I originally deleted this comment, but be bold, CAL why not.

From my professional and personal point of view (notwithstanding any forum member's right to do what the hell they want without reference to others) I would exercise extreme caution posting on this thread and any others where you feel that the language of the thread/replies isn't quite in keeping with what you are accustomed to reading. But then no-one on this forum is stupid, so I think that what I'm saying is pretty obvious.

 

[lynnonthelake]

Just to clear things up!
In view of other threads referring to "Lawyers watching", I would like to say the following. This may or may not be my personal opinion, I have the right to say it, albeit in reference to one or more presenters who may or may not be my favourite. Many contributors to the forum have opposing views, that is plainly obvious, and to be honest, the humour filled banter sometimes makes me roar with laughter. Long may it continue! One presenter who for legal reasons I am unable to identify may (or may not) be going overseas and may have (or not) been the focus of some comments. Some, with regards to the presenting style, and connection (or not) to some auction or other.
Can we all agree that there are those who like or dislike certain presenters, and it is now plainly obvious some contributors who are defending the democratic rights of contributors of this forum to have an opinion. The opposing views are also welcome, but the threads are becoming more about the contributors comments, and not the primary reason for adding our thoughts.
In the last week or so, there has been a contrary view point that some (or not) may believe a connection to a "certain" presenter previously mentioned has been trying to upset the ST forum?
The place for the dedicated luvvy dovey butt kissers is on another forum, twitter, blog, faceache etc etc.

The above may or may not have been vetted by a legal department, and may or may not be my own thoughts. I may have even been forced to write this. This should be fun, and we should remember why we are all members.
Anyhoo - morning all, rant over, - normal conditions apply.:mysmilie_12:

Love it :mysmilie_11:

 

[Pandora]

Just to clear things up!
In view of other threads referring to "Lawyers watching", I would like to say the following. This may or may not be my personal opinion, I have the right to say it, albeit in reference to one or more presenters who may or may not be my favourite. Many contributors to the forum have opposing views, that is plainly obvious, and to be honest, the humour filled banter sometimes makes me roar with laughter. Long may it continue! One presenter who for legal reasons I am unable to identify may (or may not) be going overseas and may have (or not) been the focus of some comments. Some, with regards to the presenting style, and connection (or not) to some auction or other.
Can we all agree that there are those who like or dislike certain presenters, and it is now plainly obvious some contributors who are defending the democratic rights of contributors of this forum to have an opinion. The opposing views are also welcome, but the threads are becoming more about the contributors comments, and not the primary reason for adding our thoughts.
In the last week or so, there has been a contrary view point that some (or not) may believe a connection to a "certain" presenter previously mentioned has been trying to upset the ST forum?
The place for the dedicated luvvy dovey butt kissers is on another forum, twitter, blog, faceache etc etc.

The above may or may not have been vetted by a legal department, and may or may not be my own thoughts. I may have even been forced to write this. This should be fun, and we should remember why we are all members.
Anyhoo - morning all, rant over, - normal conditions apply.:mysmilie_12:

Brilliant Dave! My first good laugh on here for a while, please keep posting.

 

[May]

:mysmilie_17:

Love this forum ...great sense of humour

 

[Miss Ellie]

Personally speaking, having a different opinion to a VERY SMALL group of people who hate a particular person does not make me anything but a person who has a different opinion to a VERY SMALL group of people who hate a particular person. There is a very strident effort against me leading to assumptions and accusations being made about me having an affiliation somewhere. I have no connection with anyone. I DO have a strong sense of responsibility as to what I post online, along with a strong sense of fairness and justice. So thinly veiled assumptions/accusations that I am causing trouble here are absolutely wrong.

Having posted on the Marverine thread, this thread was an attempt to widen a discussion about what makes a good presenter, rather than continue to divert the Marverine topic. I also created another thread recently. Rather than me causing trouble, it appears to be being created from elsewhere.

 

[Akimbo]

Post a reply or don't post a reply?

No one needs to post why they're not posting because it just derails another thread. I don't want to read this stuff and this forum is better than this.

 

[Pandora]

I wrote a reply to Miss Ellie's post and deleted it because I decided I don't want to get embroiled in a long drawn out heated discussion about something that is not really worth getting upset about. I'm off to find a fun thread!

 

[Bea Frugal]

Homework
Modesty
Respect
Calm

 

[Akimbo]

Back on topic:

The experienced presenters Julia, Jilly, Dale and others provide newcomers with a good basic model to follow but even they get it wrong sometimes, feeling too comfortable in their position, or getting lazy and relying on buzz words, or believe they are "celebrities" and are more important than the QVC money making machine. I much prefer to hear what the guest has to say than constant Twitter references or stock updates. I'd like someone on the production staff to watch hours back with the presenters and set them straight on a few grammatical and linguistic howlers some presenters are guilty of (Jill Franks being blissfully unaware of how dim she seems at times).

It's a shame a few good presenters have gone and not and not been adequately replaced; I used to like Kara Baker, Dean Wilson, PLavers and Debbie Greenwood. At least they could string a sentence together.

 

[loveallthingsitalian]

I'd like someone on the production staff to watch hours back with the presenters and set them straight on a few grammatical and linguistic howlers some presenters are guilty of (Jill Franks being blissfully unaware of how dim she seems at times)

Charlie often talks about shows being picked (at random) and reviewed the following day by managers. Now if he is correct in this I'm afraid they do a very poor job, but then I suppose 12 year olds have a different priority!

 

[loveallthingsitalian]

My last word on this is that we ARE NOT A VERY SMALL group

 

[Akimbo]

Exactly! The process is only as good as the perception of the production staff...I suspect they don't "get" what we see as poor presenting as long as QVC is still shifting stock.

 

[loveallthingsitalian]

Only when it shifts back in as quickly as it shifts out will we see changes

 

[Brissles]

Exactly! The process is only as good as the perception of the production staff...I suspect they don't "get" what we see as poor presenting as long as QVC is still shifting stock.

I strongly believe that the 'production staff' are under 40, and are probably as bad themselves, and haven't a clue what's grammatically right or wrong !! The generation who don't realise there's a T in a lot of words, and that yes is spelt Y E S , not y e a h !!!

 

[Kathy]

Imo Lawyers watching a very small group is nearly as funny :mysmilie_17:as wum's trying to upset a very nice forum. :mysmilie_59:

 

[Akimbo]

All WUMs? :dull:

I think it's probably true about the production staff not valuing accurate communication perhaps as well as we do, the slip ups that really annoy me (or make me laugh) must just whistle over their heads and I'm officially a grumpy old woman. I blame my school and parents for saddling me with these high standards! :mysmilie_19: