Community Chat

[Spurt]

---

@this is my nic wrote:

@Johnnyeager 

I always thought the hosts were paid a set salary and received commissions based on their sales.  If that's the case, not being on during the night would definitely affect the commissions of hosts who do the overnight programming.  There are lots of people whose schedules are not 8AM to 5PM, they are awake during the night, sleep during the day.  

---

@this is my nic 

There have been many print interviews and on air interviews with hosts regarding QVC's Host Jobs...they are salaried.....BUT they are NOT on commission, they do get raises and sometimes bonuses based on sales, and if their sales don't meet a certain level their contract might not be renewed....

[MaryLamb]

---

@BrandiDavis wrote:

---

@MaryLamb wrote:

---

@Stormfur wrote:

For a channel that proudly claims to listen to the people, they must have their noise canceling headphones on.  I cannot imagine that the majority is content with the constant, and dare I say borderline irritating recantation of the midnight hour.  

David Venable just stated a week ago that people have their channel on in the background.  But we don’t want to see....or hear the same item(s) over and over and over again.  Groundhog Day much, QVC?  

Get rid of the multiple channels......including HSN 2.  The utter ridiculousness of repeat performances is grating on a lot of people’s nerves. 

But....that said, I will no longer watch your channel.  I will watch or do something else.  And save $$$$. So thank you QVC?  

---

@Stormfur  The good news is that if QVC decides to take feedback from the forums seriously, they can examine complaints like yours, and check your account to make sure you’re actually spending money during the overnight hours rather than just complaining because you don’t like reruns.

---

@MaryLambWe get it, it doesn't bother you, and you are pro-EVERYTHING QVC related, you make snarky comment after comment on every thread related to this topic & others. So, the decision doesn't bother you, but it DOES bother some of us, which is obvious from post after post. How about instead of constantly posting on threads that obviously irk you, you pass on them in the future. Just a suggestion.

---

@BrandiDavis  You’re right. How dare I express my logical opinion by continuing to remind people that this was a well thought out financial decision made by the company that shouldn’t be taken personally by insomniacs who think a shopping network exists to keep them company at night rather than to sell them stuff. Wrong. I have just as much a right to speak the truth of the situation as you do to ignore the facts and try to make it about the network doing anything but something good to ensure its longevity and financial success. 

[Johnnyeager]

Can someone please post the actual, factual numbers that show that this was a sound financial business action? 

I'm curious to view them.  Some posters here seem to have access to this information so please share.

[Spurt]

What I have seen over the years, and I havent been around as long as some (I came in way after Mike Rowe, Kathy Levine were long gone, and just as Dave King left)...I think one of the problems is QVC BUYERS......in the past, QVC offered unique merchandise and brands not seen locally......now its the same stuff you find EVERYWHERE both locally and on other online retail sites at better prices.....

And I dont like it when there's a TSV and David adds in the free shipping or reduced shipping as savings in his comparison pricing when the other retailers ALWAYS offer free shipping on a high priced item...so the savings comparison is a bit misleading when calculating what you are actually saving....Go to the Keurig website and check out the model QVC just had as their TSV, Keurig "SHIPS FREE"....so there's no saving ON THE SHIPPING compared to buying it from the manufacturer....

If something sells well one year they bring the SAME STUFF BACK for the next 5 years....I mean come on....look at the so called gift offerings same stuff we've seen year after year...the gift recipients must chuckle with presents from QVC shoppers.........I can see it if something sells out the first time bringing it back one more time....but not OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again!!! 

And then there's the duplication....how many storage bags/systems do people need....same thing with candy offerings....do we need 5 companies offering a similar product???? It just adds to the repetitiveness....which leads to lack of sales....

And their clothing prices---they are comparing their prices to Boutiques, what kind of a market is there for those who shop at boutiques compared to those that shop at TJ's, Marshalls, Kohls, JCP, Macys, Dillards, Steinmart ..QVC is pricing themselves out of the MAJOR markets for clothing sales....Boutique shoppers arent going to be enough to keep them in business, and in the last report, apparel sales were down....hmmmm...wonder why!!!!  D&C used to be comparable but not any more...their prices have inched up and up....I can go to Dillards and get similiar clothes with good brands for $30, and similar with Macys....while D&C is priced mostly in the mid $40 range on up for t-shirt style tops, and PLUS shipping!!!!!  And then paying $11 for returns.....while they offer free returns!!!

[ms traditional]

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:

Can someone please post the actual, factual numbers that show that this was a sound financial business action? 

I'm curious to view them.  Some posters here seem to have access to this information so please share.

---

why do i suspect that many decisions - bad ones - led to this cost-cutting move.  overexpansion into multiple channels, merger w/HSN which has created systems issues, repetitive product programming -  could well have been contributing factors to many turning the tv channel and shopping on-line.  i would also add in the lack of education of some of the hosts:  did i really hear one ask what a chemise was on a fashion show?  uh, yes. 

edited: i would also add in that businesses often use lower volume items or time periods to attract new eyes in the belief that these buyers will return and buy other items that make this strategy pay off.  new eyes are not attracted to repetition and dull offerings.

[Spurt]

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:

Can someone please post the actual, factual numbers that show that this was a sound financial business action? 

I'm curious to view them.  Some posters here seem to have access to this information so please share.

---

@Johnnyeager 

Usually the data gets posted on LibertyInteractive's website after their press conference when they announce the quarterly results....Its quite interesting---that's where  you get the details---data, graphics, charts, etc.....the 3rd quarter results should be announced sometime in early -mid November....

[Spurt]

---

@ms traditional wrote:

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:

Can someone please post the actual, factual numbers that show that this was a sound financial business action? 

I'm curious to view them.  Some posters here seem to have access to this information so please share.

---

why do i suspect that many decisions - bad ones - led to this cost-cutting move.  overexpansion into multiple channels, merger w/HSN which has created systems issues, repetitive product programming -  could well have been contributing factors to many turning the tv channel and shopping on-line.  i would also add in the lack of education of some of the hosts:  did i really hear one ask what a chemise was on a fashion show?  uh, yes. 

edited: i would also add in that businesses often use lower volume items or time periods to attract new eyes in the belief that these buyers will return and buy other items that make this strategy pay off.  new eyes are not attracted to repetition and dull offerings.

---

@ms traditional 

I think the merger of HSN and QVC into Qurate was a BIG ALBATROSS for QVC because at the same time, QVC sales were stale and started their own decline....HSN has been doing so poorly for so many years.....It looks like a bad mistake....

OMG the host didnt know what a chemise was???? (curious who was the host?) The lack of preparation and product knowledge on the part of some of the newer hosts is just UNBELIVABLE and INEXCUSABLE....they aren't doing their homework and seem to be more focused on personal stories and off topic conversation....and sales gimmicks...

[sashamatthews]

I think those of you who have posted about offerings at other retailers are correct. For instance, i can like a purse at QVC, check out other retailers (including eBay) and get it cheaper, and usually faster than from the Q.  But we more mature shoppers  have to understand that management is aiming for the younger buyers while trying to keep our money rolling in.  When was the last time it was an event to have a TSV?  Remember the anticipation of a Leslie visit for Bare Escentuals, or a Joan Rivers weekend?  Those were the days when QVC was fun to watch and then buy from.  Now, it's simply a transaction, cut and dry, no emotion.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:

Can someone please post the actual, factual numbers that show that this was a sound financial business action? 

I'm curious to view them.  Some posters here seem to have access to this information so please share.

---

Common sense would indicate that if QVC was making money during this time period no changes would be necessary.  Management felt it necessary to try something else.  Is this the final answer, who knows.

[Johnnyeager]

No, I fail to see the sense, either common or otherwise unless I see a reduction in the Host Roster, which doesn't appear to have occurred.