@Sooner wrote:
@Mominohio wrote:
I certainly don't mean to be cold hearted, but if these folks could afford to travel around the world, not once but maybe twice, what is the point of him returning $1500 worth of clothing? I could see if these people were poor and needed the money to bury his wife, but it doesn't appear this was the problem.
When he contacted Q initially, and they said they would honor the returns, that was kind and good customer service. Whatever got lost in the process was indeed something he did not need to be dealing with at that point in time for sure. The fact that Q did give the refund after being contacted by the station is also more than generous in my opinion, but honestly with that kind of 'bad publicity' they really had no choice as a business, but to do this.
I don't see why the guy didn't just donate the things in the beginning, as it appears the financial loss for the items wasn't much of a sacrifice for their situation. ON the surface it seems like he was being cheap. His wife got joy and therapy out of buying things for a future she was hoping to have (and we aren't talking about a huge amount of money on these things). I would have been happy to give those things to others who would get great joy and use out of having them.
It's funny but we were talking about this yesterday (see bold type I added above). This is bullying by the media. QVC shouldn't have been obligated to return the items. It's was following its policy that applies to all. So the rest of the customers foot the bill and the company is harrassed by the media.
Was it fair to QVC? No. Did they do anything wrong or cruel? No. Did it make a good story for the media? Yes. You see it on the news so often now. Just call the media and you'll get your way. Some of this "consumer" story trend is good; but an awful lot of it is uncalled for now.
Just a thought.
@Sooner
I agree totally!
The time, money, effort and publicity wasted on this particular 'case' could have gone so much farther in helping some consumer (by the TV station and reporter) who was indeed a victim of fraud or shoddy workmanship.
These kinds of local TV features do a lot of good for the community, expose scams and 'businesses' that take advantage of people, take their money, do substandard work etc.
But in this case, items past a return date with a major company....well, that station/reporter was simply looking for ratings. They knew darn well they would be able to look like they 'took down' the 'big guys' at a company as massive as QVC. It was all about ratings, nothing about public service to their viewers, or relieving some of the pain this man was going through in dealing with his wife's death. In my opinion, the TV station used this guy, and he used them, and both were 'wrong' in the approach they took with this.
Blogs & Forums
