Is QVC trying to save money by having their own brands? Ex-Emma and Sophia, Tula?

I think if this were true, their profit margin would go through the roof. Smart move. If the viewers buy into it. If they don't and start voicing their displeasure with reduced sales, well, who knows. Maybe they figure they can make do with diminished sales with a larger margin.

Isn't the G.I.L.I. an in-house brand? And the Bronzo Italia? Diamonique? And I'm sure there's a cookware line that I'm not recognizing, but in-house branding has been going on for some time. Even HSN does it. Like previous poster^^^...smart move...very smart move.

No question that QVC owns the Susan Graver "brand", an I'm beginning to wonder about the Logo brand also. If you look through their last few months, there is a decided pattern here. And there's D&C and Diamonique. Not sure about Bronzo.

I noticed lately that the better designers - Louis, Bob and George - are all being shown in the wee small hours of the morning, while SG and LOGO seem to occupy the top viewing hours. Then we have GILI. Doesn't seem that they're into having their own shoes, but then I don't watch shoe shows since my size varies with the brands and I'm tired of getting the wrong size.

I also expect that a makeup brand will be forthcoming. There are linens that they say are exclusive to them, i.e. Northern Nights. And then there are items like David's cookbooks. BTW, I have both of Mary Beth's cookbooks that came out a few years ago. They are very good - basic family choices without the need for "special" ingredients that are hard to find.

I hate to see any company go overboard with their own brands - it's not always a good way to stay on top.

On 7/27/2014 sidsmom said:

Isn't the G.I.L.I. an in-house brand? And the Bronzo Italia? Diamonique? And I'm sure there's a cookware line that I'm not recognizing, but in-house branding has been going on for some time. Even HSN does it. Like previous poster^^^...smart move...very smart move.

Excellent post, sidsmom. This is nothing new, and most the big-name retailers do it.

Are they investing in their own brands because they are not financially doing as well? Or are they moving away from the risk of working with other vendors? I forgot about GILI! I meant to add that. I know that they have had their own brands for some time, as other posters stated, but I feel that it is becoming much more prevalent now and I am wondering what is causing this change. Just curious myself that's all.

Most retailers have ""house brands"" ... like the grocery store generics.

I can't see that it's an issue.

dperry: All this in-house branding is a slippery slope. If they begin squeezing out popular brands, the customer returning from a shopping hiatus might not recognize anything that is presented. That's why in-house marketing is @ a gradient. The key is to hook the customer with a national name brand...something like Bare Escentuals, WEN, Dooney...then begin edging them out with a Q equivalent product. And this takes time....lots of time, to gain the customers trust & loyalty with a Q equivalent brand. The downside is...if the in-house brand begins to financially falter, it's hard to gain the loyalty of the customer back...no matter HOW well known the product is. It's a gamble....the stakes are high, but so too are the profits!

On 7/27/2014 Kathleen said:

Most retailers have ""house brands"" ... like the grocery store generics.

I can't see that it's an issue.

I was just thinking the same thing. Don't most retailers do this? Sounds smart to me. I've shopped off and on with QVC for years and I thought they have always operated this way.