Fashion

[DiAnne]

On 2/10/2015 breee said:

It will affect my future purchases from QVC. I am between an xs and s. I ordered the teal and raspberry sleeveless dresses last summer in small and they were too large, yet in the maxi dresses the summer before I wear a small.

This year I ordered the black peacoat in small and kept wondering if I should have ordered the x-small. Eventually I ordered the x-small and it fits great. I ordered the x-small aubergine in the older animal print jacket and though it fit the sleeves were too short.

Then I decided to order the Isaac Mizrahi Live Soft Shell Jacket with hood. So based on my experience with the black peacoat I ordered the x-small. It did kinda fit but felt too restricting when buttoned. So I exchanged it for the small and it fits great.

Back to Linea items. Okay I normally order small in tops and jackets. I do not like tightly fitted but not baggy either. So even though I could possibly order x-small in whisper knits I order small. The new pullover V-neck A259108 in small was so loose I could have probably put two of me in there. I love the wk V-neck and always get it in small. The new aubergine knit jacket in small fit perfectly. The aubergine wk pencil skirt in small needed more hips, so I asked for an exchange in x-small. That exchange did not happen.

When I went to reorder it I realized the price was increased by $3.00. So to reorder it cost $3.00 more plus full shipping as in my original order I had the s&h discount. I know I could probably call and ask for an adjustment, but its just not worth it to me.

But in seeing that increase I began looking at other items I purchased in December and noticed many price increases. I think this was done prior to the now lowered $3.00 s&h to make up the difference.

Examples of this:

A259261 was $109.00 now $117.00

A259859 was $49.87 now $59.00

A217629 was $44.00 now $46.50

A259108 was $46.00 now $49.00

A224938 was $69.50 now $72.00

So it really bothers me that they increased prices prior to lowering shipping costs!

Does this surprise anyone? I think you are paying for shipping at most stores that advertise free shipping because the are adding the price to the item. No free lunch!

[CouponQueen]

On 2/9/2015 GoodStuff said:

I'm confused. Isn't the new S&H rate $3/item for apparel? And previously it was often $6 or $7 per clothing item? Aren't you paying less if you pay a flat $3/item rather than $6 or $7 for the first item and $3 or $3.50 for each additional item?

I think they aren't offering free shipping for returns now -- but they didn't anyway, did they, unless QVC made a mistake or an item was faulty? And why does the new policy make a difference in how likely you are to find different sizes in stock if you need to exchange?

because I think they DID abuse it in their own way..ordering multiples and returning whatever they didn't like etc...and now not getting that back.and I think they sent things back when they didn't fit as defective due to sizing. I have read a few posts to that affect..

[lavendar]

Gardens, in the past for a size or color exchange you weren't charged return shipping and you did not pay the original shipping. So it really was an even exchange. I don't know why they haven't kept that; it's really necessary for a place that sells clothes you can't try on.

[breee]

On 2/10/2015 lavendar said:

This is incorrect. I spoke to three CS people. They all told me the same thing: That the original S&H would be charged for an exchange. In the past it never was.

bree: why didn't your exchange happen on the aubergine pencil skirt?

The email said that size x-small in aubergine was not available, but when I checked on line it was available, so I just ordered it. I have several aubergine tops but no bottoms in aubergine except the tights!

[Camiella]

To me, ordering multiples is not abusing the policy. Purchasing a skirt, top, and jacket in the same order made sense because previously the second and third items were half shipping. Occasionally it is necessary to purchase two sizes in order to guarantee a correct fit. (And if they really aren't including specific garment measurements going forward, how can we make accurate decisions about size?) If you have shopped Linea, you know that more often than not another size will not be available for an exchange. Promptly returning an unworn item that did not fit and paying for return shipping, is not abusing the policy. Shouldn't this type of expense be part of the cost of doing business to QVC? I'm sure they have that factored in. Maybe I am naïve, but isn't online shopping supposed to be easier and more convenient? Oh well, it will all work out. . .

[bluejeansluvr]

On 2/9/2015 gardensla said:

Yes, it did.

First there were no garment measurements given for the new sweater/jacket making it impossible to select my correct size. If I have to look at the cut, the fabric, the amount of stretch, and make a best guess about my size and get it wrong and have to pay $3.00 in non-returnable shipping costs plus $7 to return, this is not a gamble I wish to take. This holds true for other items as well, primarily those from new designers where I have no experience with fit.

It is regressive and consumer unfriendly to shift all of the risk onto the consumer.

ITA on all you said especially the last sentence. This is SO not what QVC was all about in the beginning. They were all about the opposite-- giving the customer NO RISK in shopping with them. That is why they were so successful, that is what made them different. Now as someone said they are just like everyone else. Sad.

[bluejeansluvr]

On 2/10/2015 snickster said:

Yes. Without the individual garment measurements I will not order. End of my story.

[bluejeansluvr]

And I forgot to add to my previous posts that no, I did not order from the selection of new Linea items. Lots of pretty things but nothing I couldn't do without.

And. I simply won't order without garment sizing measurements.

[bluejeansluvr]

On 2/9/2015 Sheesh said:

FYI, the "Southern Channel" credits me the amount of the Return Charge in Spendable Cash---a WIN WIN. Why can't the Q ever get it right? It appears that the Q bean counters are making "bottom line $" based decisions---but it should be all about the Sales & Marketing---increasing sales and revenue.

Also, why aren't they taking a page from Amazon's book and offering a "Prime" type account where for a yearly fee, you get free shipping. I'd jump on that in a heart beat.

There does not appear to be many forward thinking people running the Q---they are always "a day late and a dollar short"---and they are trying to make up those dollars in shipping fees---but they have only succeeded in alienating their loyal customer base. I bet they put a lot of time and effort into this wrong headed decision, too.

ITA that is something they do VERY well. They are all about alienating and scolding their customers. lol Let's hope the new people at the "top" being hired will change some things for the better and we will see some positive changes. Because so far nothing I've seen is positive. The "reduced" S&H charges are such a joke.

[Danielle46]

On 2/9/2015 CathyRD said:

I do agree the discounted shipping will benefit the shopper who only buys one garment in an order, and only ever uses Standard Shipping. For the rest of us it's a huge increase in costs. And no, we do not all order lots of multiples and return lots of stuff ... we do order multiple items though, and return very little, and it's going to cost us a lot more.

what I think you don't understand is that they raised the prices of the items to reflect the cut in S&H so, in most cases your not saving a thing. I looked back at many of my purchases and the price of it item had gone up. Qvc wants you to believe that they lowered the shipping rates but your paying more now instead. It's just an illusion. They are very deceitful with how they manipulated the numbers. BTW, why do any of you use their return labels? I never do unless I'm returning something like jewelry. Their shipping labels are more than double what the post office charges sometimes triple. I always pay at the post office and have never had a problem. Do you realize that it only cost them 1/3 of the price on the shipping due to their significantly reduced shipping rates? They are ripping their customers off like crazy. I do 99% of my shopping in high end stores in person and on line and get better deals than what QVC charges for lower quality merchandise. I buy things from Qvc to supplement the apparel that I purchase from the high end stores, but that is going to stop now that they pulled this.