topic Re: Under $80.00? in Q Talk

Under $80.00?

luv-the-Q — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:28:25 GMT

I think QVC is now out of my price range. When "under $80.00" becomes a selling point it is definitely out of my league. I used to shop here because the prices were reasonable. There aren't many things I can afford on the Q now. 😞

Re: Under $80.00?

mal55 — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:37:56 GMT

I feel the same! I guess EVINE is the affordable shopping channel. PLUS shipping fee! Crazy!

Re: Under $80.00?

geegerbee — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:42:40 GMT

I stopped buying when a polyester top was $50. Most of my closet consists of QVC clothes and shoes. No more.

Re: Under $80.00?

Q4u — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:57:41 GMT

I've been buying my new clothing at Dillard's lately.... 40 - 60% off and once in awhile they've had an extra 30% off their clearance prices~! After season but I don't care.... Whoot Whoot~!

Re: Under $80.00?

Meowingkitty — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:02:32 GMT

My clothes come from Costco. Gloria Vanderbilt jeans for $15.00, sweatshirt for $20.00 and under, a shark bite shirt for summer was under $20.00 and Fila tennis shoes for $20.00.

Re: Under $80.00?

Another new name Sue — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:19:13 GMT

I shop there a lot too, kitty. I'm happy with what I buy. The GV jeans are good. The only problem with them is that sometimes I wear one size, but another pair in the same size is too small or too large. But returns are easy. (It's parking that's horrible, right?)

Re: Under $80.00?

lianne — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:28:44 GMT

I think the disconnect is the people on this forum are the original watchers from when Q was new and merchandise was unique to viewers who either couldn't shop or were far from good shopping. Over time they got used to watching and seeing the prices go up and quality go down.

Q has gone the China route and the prices have risen, the Q wants and is trying to target a younger and wealthier demographic. People on these forums remember the "old days and old prices" and sadly they aren't coming back.

The demo they are targeting now are the "hit and run" shoppers, who flip by and catch something they are interested in, not the older folks who sit and watch all day.

Re: Under $80.00?

on the bay — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:53:51 GMT

I think if there is a "disconnect", its the ones directing QVC.

When the hosts say, oh in stores you would have to add a few more zeros. I think no.There are so many stores, including those online that have so many better choices, and value.

Basically selling what amounts to a t-shirt with not especially good or long-lasting fabric no matter how its "fabrication"! for $60 some dollars and add ten for s/h and tax is just not a good selling point when you can buy the same for 1/2, 2/3 less from so many places! And maybe the people who think this is a good value really don't get to get out much and see what is available or just are comfortable buying from a shopping channel that they know, and thats okay.

I used to buy things too from QVC but hardly at all anymore. And I doubt the "younger" "hipper" target audience they hope to attract, is watching very much at all! Do you know many younger or any "younger" people that love QVC and wait to see what they can buy from here?I don't know any.

I don't think people are stupid and unless they have no other means to get out, they know perfectly well that QVC is mostly overpriced for merchandise that is not always great quality.But they may not realize this if all they are exposed to is QVC. They may just believe what the hosts tell them. I can't imagine this is a large enough audience that could sustain QVC. I like a lot of their clothing but I know I can get it elsewhere for a much better value. At the same time, if people have the money, and enjoy and are able to buy from QVC, that is fine for them.

Re: Under $80.00?

Mz iMac — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:13:42 GMT

@lianne wrote:
I think the disconnect is the people on this forum are the original watchers from when Q was new and merchandise was unique to viewers who either couldn't shop or were far from good shopping. Over time they got used to watching and seeing the prices go up and quality go down.
Q has gone the China route and the prices have risen, the Q wants and is trying to target a younger and wealthier demographic. People on these forums remember the "old days and old prices" and sadly they aren't coming back.
The demo they are targeting now are the "hit and run" shoppers, who flip by and catch something they are interested in, not the older folks who sit and watch all day.

@lianne

Re: Under $80.00?

Carmie — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 06:38:04 GMT

@lianne wrote:
I think the disconnect is the people on this forum are the original watchers from when Q was new and merchandise was unique to viewers who either couldn't shop or were far from good shopping. Over time they got used to watching and seeing the prices go up and quality go down.
Q has gone the China route and the prices have risen, the Q wants and is trying to target a younger and wealthier demographic. People on these forums remember the "old days and old prices" and sadly they aren't coming back.
The demo they are targeting now are the "hit and run" shoppers, who flip by and catch something they are interested in, not the older folks who sit and watch all day.

I can see that what you are saying is spot on, but QVC is missing the mark.

Most younger people with money are buying status items. All of the younger people that I have come into contact with, consider QVC and other shopping channels for old people. My kids and their friends would not be caught dead in clothing or carrying accessories that were recognized as coming from a shopping channel.

I am a young senior and I feel QVC ruined the Dooney bags for me. I have been collecting for years, way before shopping channels came to be. I have stopped buying D/B bags because they are now a QVC item. I would never buy GILI for that same reason. I don't want to be known as a QVC queen.

Buying from a shopping channel is "for old people." Buying from Amazon, Zulily, Zappo's (QVC companies) and other web stores are more appealing to the younger crowd.

The way people shop is evolving. Shopping channels will become a thing of the past. Younger people will not sit in front on the TV to watch someone hawking an item for 15 minutes when they can just look up an item and click from the web page. Free and fast shipping will become a selling point too.

It's just a matter of time when the QVC as we know it will be no more.

Re: Under $80.00?

Another new name Sue — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:42:18 GMT

My iMac you made me laugh!!!

QVC is not the only one going the China route so it's not fair to single them out for that!

Posters here speculate about how well QVC is doing and what's going on behind the scenes, but we really don't know. It is what it is, and I don't yearn for the old days or get upset about pricing. I'd like to see more variety too, but the world is at my fingertips via the Internet, and a multitude of shopping opportunities exist 15 minutes from my home. So QVC is just one of the ways I shop.

Re: Under $80.00?

Snicks1 — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:11:39 GMT

@Carmie wrote:
@lianne wrote:
I think the disconnect is the people on this forum are the original watchers from when Q was new and merchandise was unique to viewers who either couldn't shop or were far from good shopping. Over time they got used to watching and seeing the prices go up and quality go down.
Q has gone the China route and the prices have risen, the Q wants and is trying to target a younger and wealthier demographic. People on these forums remember the "old days and old prices" and sadly they aren't coming back.
The demo they are targeting now are the "hit and run" shoppers, who flip by and catch something they are interested in, not the older folks who sit and watch all day.
I can see that what you are saying is spot on, but QVC is missing the mark.

Most younger people with money are buying status items. All of the younger people that I have come into contact with, consider QVC and other shopping channels for old people. My kids and their friends would not be caught dead in clothing or carrying accessories that were recognized as coming from a shopping channel.

I am a young senior and I feel QVC ruined the Dooney bags for me. I have been collecting for years, way before shopping channels came to be. I have stopped buying D/B bags because they are now a QVC item. I would never buy GILI for that same reason. I don't want to be known as a QVC queen.

Buying from a shopping channel is "for old people." Buying from Amazon, Zulily, Zappo's (QVC companies) and other web stores are more appealing to the younger crowd.

The way people shop is evolving. Shopping channels will become a thing of the past. Younger people will not sit in front on the TV to watch someone hawking an item for 15 minutes when they can just look up an item and click from the web page. Free and fast shipping will become a selling point too.

It's just a matter of time when the QVC as we know it will be no more.

At its inception of course, it was the new concept in shopping, I think at some point, it will have run it's course. Then we will all be shopping from the next new concept in shopping. I have no idea when that will be, but I agree that QVC and other shopping channels are all on their way out. I enjoyed it, in it's heyday.

Re: Under $80.00?

MomCat — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:01:04 GMT

I have to assume you are talking about a piece of clothing for "under $80.00". I would have to see what it is, but I would probably agree with you. Clothing isn't much of a value here, IMO. But the good news is, I can very easily find what I need elsewhere.

Re: Under $80.00?

luv-the-Q — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:00:57 GMT

@MomCat I'm sorry. Yes, it was a top during a fashion show. It was $79. 00 and something and the selling point was that it was under $80.00. It was probably worth it, but I see fewer clothing items under $40.00 than I used to. They seem to be at least $59 or more. I just can't swing it.