Community Chat

[Etoile308]

Not a scolding. Just an OP dissatisfied with hearing something they didn't want acknowledged.

Years ago didn't someone report they got this type of letter, and their return rate was around 70%? Does anyone feel that should be acceptable considering the cost to everyone? The loss of inventory to other customers who actually want, buy, and would keep the garment? The cost passed on to the rest of us? 

There is nothing inconsistent in QVC's policy. If you can buy it, you can return within 30 days. The letter is to warn you that at some point, QVC will close your account...so you can no longer buy, thus breaking the cycle.

Curtailing excessive returns has been something the retail industry has been cracking down on for at least a decade.

[Venezia]

@Etoile308 - Very true.  There are even B&M stores that limit the number of returns a customer can make before they're cut off from making any more.  (Target is just one example.  They do track returns.)

There is a limit to how much loss any retailer should have to absorb from perpetual "returners".  And, I'm not saying this applies to the OP's case, but I'll bet we all know (or know of) someone who uses an item for the specified time and then returns it.

L.L. Bean had to end it's "no time limit, no receipt required" policy because of abuse.  Most of us wouldn't think to do it, but there were people who would buy L.L. Bean-branded items at places like Goodwill and other charity shops, take them back to Bean's for a full refund, no questions asked, buy brand new items for themselves or to sell on eBay.

One (arrogant or stupid?) woman boasted online that she bought clothes and other items for her kids each year.  Took them back when they outgrew them and bought new again with her refunds.  The generous policy was never meant to be abused in that way.

The final straw came when (and, yes, I know this for a fact) someone returned a monogrammed chamois shirt.  The clerk issued the refund, but then showed it to the top exec at LL Bean and said "Isn't this the shirt you donated to Goodwill?"  Yes, it was.  The policy was changed soon after that.  Needless to say, they had also been tracking what was happening with other returns, where people had no receipts.

Now you have a year, period.  (And that's probably too generous.)  Times have changed and so have people's ethics, sadly.

[cjm61]

@tansy Agree, I do believe they need to stop the "free exchanges" since, according to people on these boards, customers rarely get to exchange. 

[Venezia]

@cjm61 - I've managed to do a few successful exchanges within the past year.  Am I just lucky?  I do make sure to check inventory, before I send something in for exchange, and I email the Social Team to tell them the item is on its way back.

They've always managed to place the exchange order for me.

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@sheetsheba wrote:

I received a letter from QVC regarding returns.  Evidently they felt I had too many items that I have not liked or that looked terrible on me!  They suggested I listen more closely to the host presenting the item and/or get advice from the person who takes orders over the phone.  Anyone else get scolded? 

---

@sheetsheba 

I never got a letter or notice, but when I did go back over my Purchase History and see the return charges I'd paid when things didn't work out I cut back on buying things I wanted to "try".   I only purchased styles I knew would work for me.

BTW .... you can correct your mistake in the title.  Just go back to the original post and edit the title to Scolding.   

[elated]

@sheetsheba  Posters have asked what percentage is your return and no reply. You  come to the forum and state your displeasure but leave off pertinent information. QVC doesn't say let's pick a customer to send the excessive return letter and then draw from a hat. 

Even though their policy is a 30 day return, they don't want a customer who returns more than they keep. Any person with reasonable understanding would get the point. You didn't get a scolding because your a favorite customer. Seriously, I have no empathy for someone complaining about abusing a policy.

[haddon9]

I return a lot and refuse to keep items that don't look good or fit me well.

However I also buy a lot and keep a lot as well.  I believe it is the percentage of returns that will generate the letter.  I have not gotten that letter.

Of course those who rarely return anything won't get the letter so I don't understand their point.

[manny2]

---

@Venezia wrote:

@Etoile308 - Very true.  There are even B&M stores that limit the number of returns a customer can make before they're cut off from making any more.  (Target is just one example.  They do track returns.)

There is a limit to how much loss any retailer should have to absorb from perpetual "returners".  And, I'm not saying this applies to the OP's case, but I'll bet we all know (or know of) someone who uses an item for the specified time and then returns it.

L.L. Bean had to end it's "no time limit, no receipt required" policy because of abuse.  Most of us wouldn't think to do it, but there were people who would buy L.L. Bean-branded items at places like Goodwill and other charity shops, take them back to Bean's for a full refund, no questions asked, buy brand new items for themselves or to sell on eBay.

One (arrogant or stupid?) woman boasted online that she bought clothes and other items for her kids each year.  Took them back when they outgrew them and bought new again with her refunds.  The generous policy was never meant to be abused in that way.

The final straw came when (and, yes, I know this for a fact) someone returned a monogrammed chamois shirt.  The clerk issued the refund, but then showed it to the top exec at LL Bean and said "Isn't this the shirt you donated to Goodwill?"  Yes, it was.  The policy was changed soon after that.  Needless to say, they had also been tracking what was happening with other returns, where people had no receipts.

Now you have a year, period.  (And that's probably too generous.)  Times have changed and so have people's ethics, sadly.

---

Comparing QVC to a brick-and-mortar store really misses the mark. In a physical store, you can touch the fabric, try things on, and take your time deciding, even come back days later. That hands-on experience naturally supports stricter return policies.

QVC, on the other hand, is built on impulse-driven sales and theatrical presentations. You’re deciding based on a host’s pitch and a few camera angles. You are buying sight unseen, so the risk should be on QVC.

Between their initial shipping and return costs, I doubt people are buying just to return. Maybe QVC should look at the quality of what they sell.

[pigletsmom2]

I understand companies not wanting excessive returns but we are talking about a retailer who has absolutely no other way to try stuff. And considering that they tell people every 10 minutes to just try it and return it if they don't like it as a sales push then this will happen. I find it hard to believe that it's a very big number of their actual customers and I say that as someone who knew a lady who returned probably 30 or more boxes a month to the Q and HSN. 

I really don't know what they expect when it comes to clothing. Something can fit and still end up looking terrible on a person. They push you to buy multiples of a shirt and when it doesn't work they;re counting it against you? I'm sorry but the push for impulse buying is going to lead to a small number of people to take on the liberal return policy they offer.

[KKJ]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@sheetsheba wrote:

I received a letter from QVC regarding returns.  Evidently they felt I had too many items that I have not liked or that looked terrible on me!  They suggested I listen more closely to the host presenting the item and/or get advice from the person who takes orders over the phone.  Anyone else get scolded? 

---

@sheetsheba 

I never got a letter or notice, but when I did go back over my Purchase History and see the return charges I'd paid when things didn't work out I cut back on buying things I wanted to "try".   I only purchased styles I knew would work for me.

BTW .... you can correct your mistake in the title.  Just go back to the original post and  edit the title to Scolding."  

---

Wow, more petty grammar & spelling correcting.  I think we all knew what the OP was talking about here. 

Ha!  The OP getting "scolded" for leaving off one letter in scolding.  Unbelievable.