Fashion

[QueenDanceALot]

If a B&M store took all the "tried on" clothing off the floor, or discounted them as "used" they'd go broke.

[SaRina]

---

@wilma wrote:

Well...I just returned a SG sweater and asked for equal exchange in a different size. I had the sweater on for less than a minute & decided it was too big. I repackaged carefully and returned. I really don't see why this sweater should be marked down just because I tried it on. As others have posted, this happens in stores all the time. You try something on, but don't purchase, and it goes back to the rack or shelf for someone else to try. It is true that hosts used to say that buying from the Q meant trying on new items never worn, but I don't hear that anymore. 

---

Exactly. Whatever clothing items I have returned over the years, they were never on my body for more than 30 seconds, maybe a minute. Off they came and back into the package, and to the post office. I have never worn anything from anywhere, then returned it.

No business on the planet can afford to dump tried on items.

[Yesme]

If QVC followed a strict policy of inspecting items, I wouldn't have an issue (although reputable mail order wouldn't survive doing this).  I have kept some items that were clearly returns.  I strongly object to the sloppy, mangled boxes and shop worn, defective, and slept in looking items I have received as new.  This is not a rare occurrence.  We're not talking about preserving the planet here, just being an honest merchant.  If we purchase a new item, it's quite reasonable to expect a new item.

[jackthebear]

---

@Pearlee wrote:

---

@jackthebear wrote:

---

@Pearlee wrote:

I have been watching QVC since pretty much the beginning of it and for many years - most of that time - QVC hosts would tout the fact that the clothing had never been tried on, as a point in its favor.  They'd even elaborate and say it hadn't been thrown down in dressing rooms, didn't have makeup on it from being tried on, etc.  Those days are gone now but a lot of us old-timers with QVC got used to that sales pitch.

---

you are correct,  when shopping in a store you can see what you are getting.

 With shopping this way,  when you have to pay up to 8$ for a garment it's isn't right that you might get a returned item, especially when "new and not tried on" is touted as a way to shop via this medium 

returned stuff should all be sent to the outlet or as is

---

@jackthebear  I don't think the hosts tout the items as never tried on before.  I'm sure they were told not to do that - I haven't heard that in a very long time (but then, I really don't watch presentations except for LOGO).   Maybe you've heard an item touted that way recently?   I have not and I don't see how hosts could be allowed to say that any more, since it's not true.

---

I have heard it said during a presentation,  I noticed b/c I thought it rather silly at the time 

[Maltichonmom17]

---

@haddon9 wrote:

When you shop in a B&M store what do you think they do with returns?  Do you think they reduece prices on everything and make them now seconds because someone had them at one time?  If items still have tags on them and are in sellable condition they are still sold as new.

The same with the Q.  I think that returned items should be carefully inspected.  Those that are in new like condition should be carefully repackaged to ship out again.  Items that are beat up should be reduced in price.

---

@haddon9, is correct. I worked in retail for many years, and yes, most returns are returned to the sales floor. 

We would inspect the returned merchandise for stains and damage, check the pockets, etc. before returning to stock. Most items were in perfect condition and sent back to stock. Certain items were automatically defected out of stock and others, if needed,  were marked down and sent to the clearance rack. 

I think the the major problem is whether or not merchandise is properly inspected before being returned to stock. I once ordered a Stan Herman robe and when I received it, there were signs of wear. It was soiled and stained. Worst of all, there were empty gum wrappers and used tissues in the pocket.

I believe that quality control of returns is the big problem at the Q. No excuse for that. 

[DiAnne]

@Yesme

I think you are a little naive.  When you go on wait list you are usually waiting for a return.  I have shopped at the Q for years and I have only gotten one item that should not have been sent out and that was a purse that was dirty inside.  You need to shop the first time an item is on the air to guarantee it has never been tried on or used.  It would be very poor business practice to discount everything that has only been tried on or turned on.  

[Nataliesgramma]

've only received one item over the years that was an obvious return....it was a pair of Denim & Co capris. They were washed. I have had a few though that didn't look brand new.....but the still looked new and not worn. 

[Cwoldie]

The difference is you get to see what you're buying in a store so you'd know it was not in an acceptable condition.

[sunshine45]

---

@Cwoldie wrote:

The difference is you get to see what you're buying in a store so you'd know it was not in an acceptable condition.

---

not if you order from the store online though.

[Tique]

---

@SaRina wrote:

---

---

Exactly. Whatever clothing items I have returned over the years, they were never on my body for more than 30 seconds, maybe a minute. Off they came and back into the package, and to the post office. I have never worn anything from anywhere, then returned it.

No business on the planet can afford to dump tried on items.

---

@SaRina  same here. I read about people wearing things for several hours and checking to see if they wrinkle within that time period. I read about people laundering items to see if the color runs. Call me picky but if it doesn't work out for you after all that, I don't want it.

I have received clothing items that reek of someone's cologne. I have received the former recipient's invoice along with their mailing information. I even received a purse that had several one-dollar bills in the front pocket. Obviously no one had checked it when the former recipient returned it.