They laid off the wrong hosts - Page 6

Alter Ego · ‎03-12-2010

@banned again wrote:
@ALRATIBA wrote:
Apparently - some people watch QVC for entertainment by the hosts.
Well, we're paying for it, why not? How is this a new concept? This is what QVC was designed to be 34 years ago.

Agreed. Plus, 34 years ago they didn't need to compete with online shopping. "Entertainment" is literally one of the few things that separate Q from hundreds/thousands of new competitors. The Q needs to balance between that but actually also getting you to buy.

erinabriella · ‎10-27-2018

@Alter Ego wrote:
@banned again wrote:
@ALRATIBA wrote:
Apparently - some people watch QVC for entertainment by the hosts.
Well, we're paying for it, why not? How is this a new concept? This is what QVC was designed to be 34 years ago.
Agreed. Plus, 34 years ago they didn't need to compete with online shopping. "Entertainment" is literally one of the few things that separate Q from hundreds/thousands of new competitors. The Q needs to balance between that but actually also getting you to buy.

Good points. The PTB have said in interviews they provide entertainment.

nettaloveu · ‎08-17-2013

Antonella said she didn't see that coming and that she had been crying for days she was hurt

Lali1 · ‎08-21-2014

@mousiegirl wrote:
@JackieHN wrote:
Paid off my Q card and I'm done. They fired the wrong host. Antonella has 22K followers on facebook. She was a breath of fresh air. This was her dream job and she worked hard at it. Fire the newer hosts who add nothing to QVC.

@JackieHN I wonder if Antonella's blond hair had anything to do with it. In my opinion, she did not look good with that hair, should have left it natural. People have been let go for less.

I have wondered the same. I know it seems like a silly reason but the color was so harsh on her. Surely not the only reason but could have added to it.

nettaloveu · ‎08-17-2013

So true that blond hair had to go

Lisa now in AZ · ‎03-11-2010

I think Ant's hair MAY have contributed to it, but only because she started acting much more insecure about the time she did that. Overall, while many people enjoyed her as a person, they clearly didn't purchase enough to justify keeping her. I don't know how they figured the algorithm that should have taken into accoount the hours the hosts were given (and the station - like if they were usually on Q2, whch is watched far less than main QVC).

I see lots of posts on here about people who feel so sorry for her and are so sad that she is gone, based on her posts that she was blindsided and crying for days. I have never been a fan of posting thoughts and immediate reactions on social media for the world to see. It has a way of making it hard to get another position if a new company perceives that as maybe being unstable or making poor decisions. I am sure she appreciates all the outpouring of sympathy and affection, but none of those people are making hiring decisions.

Effie54 · ‎09-08-2010

Hosts popularity is subjective. What one customer might enjoy, the other does not. Personalities are subjective; you can relate to one, while others not so much. For myself, I didn't care too much for Antonella (she was loud), but loved Gabrielle Kerr. I never saw the other two that were let go. I think that who stays and who goes, is determined by how much they sell.

Styleovertrend · ‎06-11-2019

@KATIE ANN and as long as that is true and their heads are buried in the sand, the Q won't get better. If one reads a lot of the comments that are not complimentary, it ususally involves these 3.

mamaslittlepotato · ‎03-09-2010

I like Antonella and sorry to see her go, but lately she’s been acting silly and over the top, even on her YouTube channel with her husband. So many strange facial expressions and her voice is different too.

The same with RD. I don’t watch him often, but he’s different than I remember him too. Now he’s over the top, hyper and very over exaggerating to the point that it seems fake.

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

@songbird wrote:
Actually one of the few positions that are protected are tenured full professors at university. The reason for that is to protect Academic freedom. It's almost a universal system. Most countries that have freedom of speech have tenured professors. it's basically employment with no expiration date. They aren't granted that right away either. It's after a six tear probationary period. If they are denied, they can challenge it. I think there is another probationary period.

Another one is Supreme court judges. That is a life time position. So there are protected employment. So pretty much anyone with a very long employment record can go on the whim of anybody high up either private or government positions. But the academic world has always been separate from corporations. Lately there have been attacks on that. I think in Florida they passed a law that professors have to have limited contracts. That's dangerous. Increasingly Academic schools come under the influence of Corporations.

@songbirdRE: University professors. Not quite true. Tenure means the right to due process. It is not a guarantee for lifetime employment.

If limited contracts are put into place, then what is troubling is- what exactly would be the cause?

Academic freedom isn't under scrutiny by corporations; it is under scrutiny because it is becoming increasinly difficult for professors to conduct discussions that support a variety of viewpoints. Professors who present anything that acutually has students THINK and debate are becoming increasingly rare.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh