Community Chat

[scotttie]

On 9/29/2014 Pqfan said:

Thanks for the info scottie because I probably wouldn't have seen this.

I am glad the long standing posts will be left alone for the people that post in them.

I like posting here but I realize QVC is the BOSS so ultimately they will do what they want.

I have other places that I post so when QVC puts the muzzle on us I go elsewhere.

I need to not be on the internet so much anyway.

You're welcome. I came across it by accident myself and so thought posters here might miss it.

[lovescats]

On 9/29/2014 CouponQueen said:

How would any of us like it if our employers allowed people to go on company websites and criticize the way we do our job..how we look etc? I think they should of cut it out long ago.

But for some companies that would be a review of the services they provide. And I don't think it is the same as when people bash the hosts just because they don't like them.

I think it would be nice if people didn't bash the hosts but I don't know if you shouldn't be allowed to bash them. I'm sure everyone can think of things the hosts say that have been discussed endlessly. I watch qvc a lot less so I'm annoyed by the hosts a lot less.

[focksie]

On 9/29/2014 Complicated said:

If a person wants to make a host suggestion to the Q, then the Q should allow it ONLY to be done in a private manner-- not on threads where everyone can discuss it back and forth -- where it ends up getting ugly and out of control.

For example: if poster A has a problem with Host B's presentation, then they should have to address it thru email directly to a separate email for such "suggestions" to the Q in general (not host by host) and it would be out of sight for the rest of the bb.

Then the Q can decide if it is a legit matter for them to address with their hosts.

That is my suggestion. : )

Great idea!

[Suziepeach]

What's the difference in bashing the products & etc that the Q sells in comparison to remarks about a host yet threads continue absolutely shredding posters- mostly a certain one- with their know it all remarks and making fun..

[Marianne1]

On 9/29/2014 Peachysue said:

What's the difference in bashing the products & etc that the Q sells in comparison to remarks about a host yet threads continue absolutely shredding posters- mostly a certain one- with their know it all remarks and making fun..

I certainly do not endorse any bashing, but the hosts are not participating on the bb.

The poster is. And the poster engages in the conversation. They have the choice to leave the bb and it most likely would not impact their lives to do so in any meaningful way.

Hosts do not have the choice to defend themselves, and if "they leave" like a poster can, it would mean leaving their job.

Again, I do not think anyone should be "bashed", but I seldom see it as a one sided issue with posters-- it takes active participation.

[Moonchilde]

On 9/29/2014 Complicated said:

If a person wants to make a host suggestion to the Q, then the Q should allow it ONLY to be done in a private manner-- not on threads where everyone can discuss it back and forth -- where it ends up getting ugly and out of control.

For example: if poster A has a problem with Host B's presentation, then they should have to address it thru email directly to a separate email for such "suggestions" to the Q in general (not host by host) and it would be out of sight for the rest of the bb.

Then the Q can decide if it is a legit matter for them to address with their hosts.

That is my suggestion. : )

This is a good idea, in that QVC can immediately discount, i.e. toss, the OTT outright crude host/vendor bashers, because they are so easy to spot. Best case scenario would be mods taking note of multiple polite suggestions/complaints re certain hosts and vendors so that statistics can be used - say 30% of in-private-to-QVC posters mention the same issue about a host. That is a useful statistic that could then be mentioned to the host or vendor. A 5-10% complaint tells them those who have issue about whatever are in the minority. The percentage of posters, of course, would be correlated with the standard statistics that if X number of people comment, that is 10% (and I have heard it's less) of the people who are reading the forums or watching the programming. Although some will always want what they want when they want it, going about making possible changes should be about the percentage of customers who feel the same way about whatever it is and whether there is a large enough percentage to bother taking note of.

[mstyrion 1]

On 9/29/2014 Peachysue said:

What's the difference in bashing the products & etc that the Q sells in comparison to remarks about a host yet threads continue absolutely shredding posters- mostly a certain one- with their know it all remarks and making fun..

I suppose you could take it a step further and question why it is OK to flay celebrities and other people in the news too.

I've seen words like "pig", "ho", "trash" in posts about women in the news.

Do you think this is OK? If so, what is the difference since all of the above named people are folks we don't know.

[Suziepeach]

On 9/29/2014 Complicated said:

On 9/29/2014 Peachysue said:

What's the difference in bashing the products & etc that the Q sells in comparison to remarks about a host yet threads continue absolutely shredding posters- mostly a certain one- with their know it all remarks and making fun..

I certainly do not endorse any bashing, but the hosts are not participating on the bb.

The poster is. And the poster engages in the conversation. They have the choice to leave the bb and it most likely would not impact their lives to do so in any meaningful way.

Hosts do not have the choice to defend themselves, and if "they leave" like a poster can, it would mean leaving their job.

Again, I do not think anyone should be "bashed", but I seldom see it as a one sided issue with posters-- it takes active participation.

I respectfully disagree- the hosts are a vital part of QVC, just like complaining about a salesperson in retail that represent the company they are hawking stuff for. Bashing to me is tearing someone to shreds- I don't see anything wrong with stating how or what we think about any of the hosts, as long as it isn't bad. And I agree about posters participating but in the same respect the posters that don't want hosts bashed have no problem ripping into other posters- isn't that the same kind of bashing & worse?

[Marianne1]

I already explained in an earlier post that the Q should offer another avenue for customers to voice their constructive criticism of the hosts, in private, away from the bb.

Threads on a public bb where the hosts cannot defend themselves, deny rumors etc is not productive for anyone.

[Suziepeach]

On 9/29/2014 mstyrion 1 said:

On 9/29/2014 Peachysue said:

What's the difference in bashing the products & etc that the Q sells in comparison to remarks about a host yet threads continue absolutely shredding posters- mostly a certain one- with their know it all remarks and making fun..

I suppose you could take it a step further and question why it is OK to flay celebrities and other people in the news too.

I've seen words like "pig", "ho", "trash" in posts about women in the news.

Do you think this is OK? If so, what is the difference since all of the above named people are folks we don't know.

We aren't talking about celebrities, we're talking about conversations about QVC hosts- they're salesperson, not celebrities- what is wrong with saying lip liner is out, eyebrows too dark, don't like the cut of someone's hair, or the face they make when they eat? LOL and some celebs are those words you mentioned- it's their lifestyles all out in the public that they want all the attention and big bucks.. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, just voicing how I feel... so the next time a one particular poster is shredded, I'm going to start getting louder- no one that posts with us should be made fun of or treated like that-= we don't know their history like none of you know me...