For me, the problem stems largely from what appears to be a lack of integrity at Gems. It's all the more notable because it's coming from a company and a CEO who appeared to be acting with the highest integrity and ethical standards not so very long ago. And since no one changes that drastically, it seems a logical deduction that the earlier oft-stated values were simply there to bring in huge numbers of supporters and customers, and that's exactly what happened. Now that a level of success has been achieved and tv coverage has widened the customer base, it seems that the older and formerly loyal, sometimes fanatically so, customers, have been casually dropped by the wayside. I've said before that such a policy is short-term-ism at its most obvious, and it does not augur well for the continued and sustained growth of a company.
Not so very long ago, Mr Bennett started a thread on here in which he stated that he was listening to our concerns and criticisms, and was prepared to act upon them. In that post he stated that he would deal with such issues as shouting presenters, and that, given time, many other problems would be addressed also.
Now it seems that he has stated the exact opposite in a telephone call to Graham, and that is something that saddens me somewhat. It also, quite frankly, baffles me, since that call appeared to make clear that Mr Bennett didn't care about losing viewers and, therefore, customers, if they were not happy with the presentations. "If you don't like it, don't watch it" is not a mantra guaranteeing tremendous success for a company. If people don't watch, they don't buy, do they? So where is the logic in that?
I'm always a touch irritated that the whole family run business thing is so emphasised when it makes absolutely no difference to a customer whether a business is run by a family or some other disparate group of people. In this case, it seems that due to the close ties within the company, no one is putting forth an opposing opinion about the way things are going, and that's surely not a good thing, and is leading Mr Bennett towards the strange belief that the customers are the problem, and that if he simply carries on as usual all will be resolved.
I'm somewhat irritated to learn that in spite of the fact that Mr Bennett states that he dislikes gimmicks, and said in the past that he wouldn't use them, he is now accepting of them because they generate sales. How very cynical. What sort of sales? Sales to people who are so gullible that they are convinced that the sound of a heartbeat means that they must buy now or miss out on the bargain of the century. I doubt that vulnerable people susceptible to that sort of nonsense really have the kind of money to maintain a jewellery company for very long. And in the meantime, the type of customer who should be attracted to the channel, switches off and goes elsewhere.
The same is true of the prevailing style of presentation, that of the screeching, say anything for a sale, leave honesty at the door patter of a dubious market trader. I read the comments on here a few days ago and decided to have a look at Gems to see for myself what was happening. Firstly, I stayed about a quarter of an hour, and felt that I should get a medal for having lasted that long. Not only was there a screaming banshee presenting, but she actually said something along the lines of "You know how you have Gucci and Prada and Dior? Well, that's what you've got with Sarah Bennett - high end designer jewellery". I'm sorry? I doubt very much that people view those names as being on a par. This sort of thing is ludicrous and ultimately damaging since it affects credibility.
The presenter also referred to £74.99 as "£74! What an amazing deal! Just £74!" and a few minutes later an item at £99.99 was "£99! Unbelievable!" Well, she got the "unbelievable" bit right anyhow.
And just for a change, she mentioned that the "games" were "genuine falling auctions". Not so. Just to reiterate, a genuine falling auction is dictated by the auctionee, not the auctioneer. Every item would be auctioned, and would remain in auction until it sold, whether that meant going to £100 or £1. At best what you have is a reserve price auction, but really it is a falling price sale, with the price decided by Gems. Not what Mr Bennett claims at all. As to the completely arbitrary start prices, well, in which parallel universe are they decided? All this wouldn't matter so much if we weren't being told that all changes were done for us and to our benefit. No. Being able to "move on" from an auction simply gives the auctioneer more power to end things earlier, and is in no way "more exciting" with "more opportunites" for the potential buyer. why not just have your price and be done with it, cutting out the pretense and treating the customers like intelligent, rational beings?
The gimmicks and methods of selling just seem to underline the fact that we are right about the presentation style being uneffective. If the company had confidence in its product and confidence and belief in its sales team, gimmicks would not be necessary. The quality of the jewellery and the simple relating of facts about it would be enough to sell. In all this, I must state that Gems possesses one brilliant presenter, but quite bafflingly does not make the best use of him. That is, of course, the natural broadcaster that is Alan Miller.
