QVC is horribly unimaginative when it come to men's products!

[shopperholic]

Oops! Wrong place. :mysmilie_17:

 

[Craftalot]

I totally agree with you about this. QVC also seems to have embraced the fact that is, essentially, entirely dispensable and doesn't actually sell anything you 'need' - it's all about indulgence and extravagance. All that 'treating yourself, me-me-me, I'm important and valuable etc' stuff. And this is targeted fair and square at women. Might be sexist, but most men just wouldn't spend £120 on a small pot of grease called 'Dr Perricone' without some pretty hard evidence that it actually does something. But QVC know they can sell that sort of thing to women on the basis of indulgence and 'you're worth it' - they can also benefit from the high margins and low shipping costs on these items. This isn't to say that women are somehow more gullible than men, but different things press their buttons. And shopping telly can do it very well and very profitably. Basically, men and the products which appeal to them wouldn't make the Q enough money and that's all that matters to them.

 

[Akimbo]

It has occurred to me, yes. In so doing I'm not making sweeping statements about all women, though.

Does that make it acceptable? Is mysogeny limited to sweeping generalisations about womankind; but specific verbal attacks are okay and don't count?

 

[Julius]

Does that make it acceptable? Is mysogeny limited to sweeping generalisations about womankind; but specific verbal attacks are okay and don't count?

So when people criticise Dale Franklin, or Simon Biagi that's misandry, is it? Do any men get all up in arms about it? Why don't you get off your high horse and stop trying to twist things up to suit your own agenda? Perhaps you're so looking for negativity you don't notice the nice things I and other people write - quite often actually. I'm not going to pander to fragile and misguided sensibilities for one minute, and nor am I going to engage in any further dialogue with you, merely sufficing to say that this is a forum for people to air their views about various things. Many people on this forum criticise men and women on QVC and elsewhere. I wouldn't extrapolate too much from it if I were you - although you can if you want to.

 

[mr tom]

I totally agree with you about this. QVC also seems to have embraced the fact that is, essentially, entirely dispensable and doesn't actually sell anything you 'need' - it's all about indulgence and extravagance. All that 'treating yourself, me-me-me, I'm important and valuable etc' stuff. And this is targeted fair and square at women. Might be sexist, but most men just wouldn't spend £120 on a small pot of grease called 'Dr Perricone' without some pretty hard evidence that it actually does something. But QVC know they can sell that sort of thing to women on the basis of indulgence and 'you're worth it' - they can also benefit from the high margins and low shipping costs on these items. This isn't to say that women are somehow more gullible than men, but different things press their buttons. And shopping telly can do it very well and very profitably. Basically, men and the products which appeal to them wouldn't make the Q enough money and that's all that matters to them.

I think it can be argued that the shipping barely costs them anything, based on the recent p&p prices.

 

[Vienna]

My son used to work for a large courier firm (UPS) and large companies such as QVC negotiate contracts with courier firms. They pay a large lump sum as agreed in their contract usually yearly and this gives the courier firm a lump sum investment but it also means that large companies can send as many parcels as they wish during that time and the more they send then the cheaper per parcel it costs. They will pay a fraction per parcel than the likes of you and I or much smaller vendors. Royal Mail also do business contracts and so do all the other couriers such as Hermes, DPD etc. There`s no doubting that QVC are making hidden profits from their delivery charges and to the tune of many thousands.

 

[mr tom]

My son used to work for a large courier firm (UPS) and large companies such as QVC negotiate contracts with courier firms. They pay a large lump sum as agreed in their contract usually yearly and this gives the courier firm a lump sum investment but it also means that large companies can send as many parcels as they wish during that time and the more they send then the cheaper per parcel it costs. They will pay a fraction per parcel than the likes of you and I or much smaller vendors. Royal Mail also do business contracts and so do all the other couriers such as Hermes, DPD etc. There`s no doubting that QVC are making hidden profits from their delivery charges and to the tune of many thousands.

I couldn't agree more with this.

I always felt the profit margin is more in the p&p at times than the product, as it is rarely refunded so qvc will often make £5 on every item regardless of it coming back through the door. There has to be huge money in that surely?

 

[stratobuddy]

Don't forget you can demand your postage back, I started a thread on this somewhere on here.

 

[Akimbo]

So when people criticise Dale Franklin, or Simon Biagi that's misandry, is it? Do any men get all up in arms about it? Why don't you get off your high horse and stop trying to twist things up to suit your own agenda? Perhaps you're so looking for negativity you don't notice the nice things I and other people write - quite often actually. I'm not going to pander to fragile and misguided sensibilities for one minute, and nor am I going to engage in any further dialogue with you, merely sufficing to say that this is a forum for people to air their views about various things. Many people on this forum criticise men and women on QVC and elsewhere. I wouldn't extrapolate too much from it if I were you - although you can if you want to.

There are derogatory comments on this forum aimed at male presenters; Craig and Peter Simon immediately spring to mind. There are plenty of apparently female forumites who regularly post verbal hatchet-jobs about females and males alike. That doesn't justify either to me. I'm not a fan of the sarcastic and often hurtful personal digs at anyone, presenters, guests, forum members, facebook users. It's not big and it's not clever and I'll hold my hand up that I've fallen into taking cheap shots at QVC-related folk but I'm trying hard not to resort to the lowest form of wit. I find I'm reading and posting less and less in recent months. I also hate pontificators so I'm going to give myself a serious talking to!

 

[shopperholic]

I (and other femail Forumites) never make derogatory comments about presenters, only their job and things attached to it, pretty much like I’d criticise a plumber/hairdresser/decorator if they did a rubbish job, I call out QVC on their lies and service, because I don’t like liars or rubbish service. We’re all entitled to an opinion and how we present that opinion. I prefer to comment in a jokey way, or sarcasm if you see it that way, because it takes the raw edges off a negative/factual comment, no one has to read my comments or opinions, they’re not forced to so I’d hope they would use the “block” function. Some people on this forum though act whiter than white, perfect or just on their high horse but forget that their mask has slipped over the years, me though I’m consistent. I do get a lot of “likes” though so others luckily see the comments for what they are and don’t see it as a hatchet job, just a commentit can’t be thaI can’t be all that bad. I don’t think it’s very classy though when one Forumite tries to belittle others because they don’t agree with their comments or how they’re written. :mysmilie_3:

 

[shopperholic]

I (and other femail Forumites) never make derogatory comments about presenters, only their job and things attached to it, pretty much like I’d criticise a plumber/hairdresser/decorator if they did a rubbish job, I call out QVC on their lies and service, because I don’t like liars or rubbish service. We’re all entitled to an opinion and how we present that opinion. I prefer to comment in a jokey way, or sarcasm if you see it that way, because it takes the raw edges off a negative/factual comment, no one has to read my comments or opinions, they’re not forced to so I’d hope they would use the “block” function. Some people on this forum though act whiter than white, perfect or just on their high horse but forget that their mask has slipped over the years, me though I’m consistent. I do get a lot of “likes” though so others luckily see the comments for what they are and don’t see it as a hatchet job, just a commentit can’t be thaI can’t be all that bad. I don’t think it’s very classy though when one Forumite tries to belittle others because they don’t agree with their comments or how they’re written. :mysmilie_3:

Typing this on iPhone so typos at the end should say “so cant be all that bad” can hardly see what I’m writing. ��

 

[mr tom]

Don't forget you can demand your postage back, I started a thread on this somewhere on here.

This is true, but I feel they rely on the notion that many customers won't go through the hassle for the fiver.

 

[Julius]

Typing this on iPhone so typos at the end should say “so cant be all that bad” can hardly see what I’m writing. ��

A lot of it is down to people's perception. Few things, whether they be journalistic articles, tweets or posts on an internet forum are definitive. My opinions are not definitive, except perhaps to me.

Some people hold certain issues so closely to their heart that they are extremely reactive in defense of their beliefs. It's almost as though they feel that they themselves are under attack when in fact they are not. Perhaps Nik and Eva Speakman could explain it better than me (or perhaps not) but I'm aware of the idea of the "ego-identified mind" where people believe that their ideas are them, and perhaps to some extent, they are. What makes a person uniquely them, if not their beliefs and personality traits?

If a man says something negative about a woman, the label "misogynistic" is applied, whereas if a woman says the same thing, a lot more is forgiven. I'm not sure whether men find it more insulting being insulted by a woman or by a man. Perhaps in some circumstances they do. Who knows? I don't see them championing men's causes that much though. They just generally don't see the need to.

There are a fair few chips on shoulders on this forum though, and they try to take things personally, in my case by having a dig at my career, or what they think they know about my career. It comes with the territory in my line of work. I'm not always preaching to the converted, but putting the cat among the proverbial pigeons.

People often confuse and conflate the general with the particular, meaning if somebody says something bad about one woman, they are criticising all women. So when I say I hate Myra Hindley, I must hate all women? But why then do I like Jan Springer, for example? It's possible to dislike or even hate one thing about someone, or even one person, without hating all people of that person's gender.

The Express used to be fantastic when Hugh Whittow was in charge. Lucy Johnstone wrote some great articles and of course we had Jimmy Young, who was by a million miles the most lovely, wonderful and inspirational person I have ever met. I'm not ashamed to say I cried a river when he passed away. The world lost a true star when he departed. Today it's all anti-EU BS and articles about dementia, which I imagine the editors must believe most of the readers suffer from. The apocalyptic weather articles by Nathan Rao were getting ridiculous.

One colleague of mine, who happens to be a woman, has had some awful threats from other women, saying she's "a disgrace to her gender" and that "she ought to know better." Personally I think she's fantastic!

Here's a song for you all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQurOaxYvZQ

 

[Vienna]

A lot of it is down to people's perception. Few things, whether they be journalistic articles, tweets or posts on an internet forum are definitive. My opinions are not definitive, except perhaps to me.

Some people hold certain issues so closely to their heart that they are extremely reactive in defense of their beliefs. It's almost as though they feel that they themselves are under attack when in fact they are not. Perhaps Nik and Eva Speakman could explain it better than me (or perhaps not) but I'm aware of the idea of the "ego-identified mind" where people believe that their ideas are them, and perhaps to some extent, they are. What makes a person uniquely them, if not their beliefs and personality traits?

If a man says something negative about a woman, the label "misogynistic" is applied, whereas if a woman says the same thing, a lot more is forgiven. I'm not sure whether men find it more insulting being insulted by a woman or by a man. Perhaps in some circumstances they do. Who knows? I don't see them championing men's causes that much though. They just generally don't see the need to.

There are a fair few chips on shoulders on this forum though, and they try to take things personally, in my case by having a dig at my career, or what they think they know about my career. It comes with the territory in my line of work. I'm not always preaching to the converted, but putting the cat among the proverbial pigeons.

People often confuse and conflate the general with the particular, meaning if somebody says something bad about one woman, they are criticising all women. So when I say I hate Myra Hindley, I must hate all women? But why then do I like Jan Springer, for example? It's possible to dislike or even hate one thing about someone, or even one person, without hating all people of that person's gender.

The Express used to be fantastic when Hugh Whittow was in charge. Lucy Johnstone wrote some great articles and of course we had Jimmy Young, who was by a million miles the most lovely, wonderful and inspirational person I have ever met. I'm not ashamed to say I cried a river when he passed away. The world lost a true star when he departed. Today it's all anti-EU BS and articles about dementia, which I imagine the editors must believe most of the readers suffer from. The apocalyptic weather articles by Nathan Rao were getting ridiculous.

One colleague of mine, who happens to be a woman, has had some awful threats from other women, saying she's "a disgrace to her gender" and that "she ought to know better." Personally I think she's fantastic!

Crikey Julius and I`m not being sexist here because I`d say the same whether you were a man or a woman but your posts are way too long, are enough to send a glass eye to sleep and you don`t half love the sound of your own voice.

 

[Julius]

Crikey Julius and I`m not being sexist here because I`d say the same whether you were a man or a woman but your posts are way too long, are enough to send a glass eye to sleep and you don`t half love the sound of your own voice.

Sorry, I'll make then Twitter-style in future!

 

[shopperholic]

A lot of it is down to people's perception. Few things, whether they be journalistic articles, tweets or posts on an internet forum are definitive. My opinions are not definitive, except perhaps to me.

Some people hold certain issues so closely to their heart that they are extremely reactive in defense of their beliefs. It's almost as though they feel that they themselves are under attack when in fact they are not. Perhaps Nik and Eva Speakman could explain it better than me (or perhaps not) but I'm aware of the idea of the "ego-identified mind" where people believe that their ideas are them, and perhaps to some extent, they are. What makes a person uniquely them, if not their beliefs and personality traits?

If a man says something negative about a woman, the label "misogynistic" is applied, whereas if a woman says the same thing, a lot more is forgiven. I'm not sure whether men find it more insulting being insulted by a woman or by a man. Perhaps in some circumstances they do. Who knows? I don't see them championing men's causes that much though. They just generally don't see the need to.

There are a fair few chips on shoulders on this forum though, and they try to take things personally, in my case by having a dig at my career, or what they think they know about my career. It comes with the territory in my line of work. I'm not always preaching to the converted, but putting the cat among the proverbial pigeons.

People often confuse and conflate the general with the particular, meaning if somebody says something bad about one woman, they are criticising all women. So when I say I hate Myra Hindley, I must hate all women? But why then do I like Jan Springer, for example? It's possible to dislike or even hate one thing about someone, or even one person, without hating all people of that person's gender.

The Express used to be fantastic when Hugh Whittow was in charge. Lucy Johnstone wrote some great articles and of course we had Jimmy Young, who was by a million miles the most lovely, wonderful and inspirational person I have ever met. I'm not ashamed to say I cried a river when he passed away. The world lost a true star when he departed. Today it's all anti-EU BS and articles about dementia, which I imagine the editors must believe most of the readers suffer from. The apocalyptic weather articles by Nathan Rao were getting ridiculous.

One colleague of mine, who happens to be a woman, has had some awful threats from other women, saying she's "a disgrace to her gender" and that "she ought to know better." Personally I think she's fantastic!

Here's a song for you all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQurOaxYvZQ

Sorry Julius, I lost the will about second paragraph in...... one thing I don't get is who's it aimed at, certainly not me because there's no chip on my shoulder, still doesn't explain why you called me a prostitute though. That's a rhetorical quaestion by the way, like I say, I haven't got the will to read your "War And Peace" typesque reply. By the way, didn't give you the satisfaction of listening to what ever song that is. :mysmilie_3:

 

[Akimbo]

I don't watch "Loose Women" type shows that get away with digs at men with it's lazy generalisations about men's ability to multi-task, forgetting anniversary dates etc. It's all out-dated thinking to me.

Beyond the useful info and review posts on here I just want to read something new, interesting. I'll do the same, so no more tub-thumping from me either if I'm out of step with my view that there's more evil in the world than QVC, even including Flint, Biagi and Rowe, The Letter, postage, returns...

 

[Julius]

Sorry Julius, I lost the will about second paragraph in...... one thing I don't get is who's it aimed at, certainly not me because there's no chip on my shoulder, still doesn't explain why you called me a prostitute though. That's a rhetorical quaestion by the way, like I say, I haven't got the will to read your "War And Peace" typesque reply. By the way, didn't give you the satisfaction of listening to what ever song that is. :mysmilie_3:

Fair enough. Anyone is perfectly free to read as much or as little as they like. Your actions don't affect my levels of satisfaction - either positively or negatively, and I'm not getting into the prostitute debate, thank you very much.

 

[shopperholic]

Fair enough. Anyone is perfectly free to read as much or as little as they like. Your actions don't affect my levels of satisfaction - either positively or negatively, and I'm not getting into the prostitute debate, thank you very much.

I would never suggest that my opinions had the power to affect other people, nor would I ever want them to and would be horrified if they did..........just my opinions Julius, nothing more nothing less. As for the prostitute "debate", it's not open to one, you said it. case closed.

 

[Akimbo]

Back on topic:
Gentlemen! Fill your boots/Jump to the phones; your prayers have been answered:
173569

:rock: