Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

Original poster

To think Fearne Cotton/Holly Willoughby/Denise Van Outen should think twice?

22 replies

MarioandLuigi · 27/01/2011 15:03

Before putting thier name to a fashion range where the catalogue selling the clothes charges a whopping 45.9% APR.

I know its not them setting the APR, and its just a job to them, plus they are not making people buy, but do they not feel a little guilty that so many of thier fans will be rushing out to buy clothes they cant really afford?

OP posts:

paarrp · 27/01/2011 15:05

YANBU
Same for carol bloodyvorderman and parky doing those life cover sales in which people pay in hellofalot of money and pay out bugger all.

Itsjustafleshwound · 27/01/2011 15:10

YANBU - anyone who is willing to look like them and then pay 45% APR to do so need their head examining ....

But then surely there should be something done to ensure that companies can't charge ridiculous rates ...

jaffacake79 · 27/01/2011 15:16

45% flipping heck.
It's ads like that that make my skin itch, that and wonga where they charge a stupendous 2337% or somesuch!!!

WimpleOfTheBallet · 27/01/2011 16:06

I don't think they have fans that would "rush out" to buy this crap..."stars" of their calibre have "members of the public who vaguely like them" rather than fans...but it's not the sort of hero worship that Lady Gaga or Jordan command...so YABU..people should think twice before bying clothes from catalogues at inflated prices.

GetOrfMoiLand · 27/01/2011 16:09

Why is it their problem? They are doing a modelling job, they are not some kind of financial gurus.

I can't imagine that there are fans who rush out to buy denise van Outen fashions and who are 'conned' into paying the APR.

If you are daft enough to buy clothes on tick from a catalogue, well more fool you. Especially when you can buy cheap and cheerful stuff from Asda etc.

TallulahdoesthehulainHawaii · 27/01/2011 16:19

I don't understand why it is their problem either?

Do you think they should study the catalogue's APR rates before they do their bit of mogelling?

PonceyMcPonce · 27/01/2011 16:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jonicomelately · 27/01/2011 16:24

YANBU

They are being paid a fortune. They have a responsibility to their 'fans' which I don't think they're properly discharging.

ambarth · 27/01/2011 16:29

YABU

People should think twice before they buy something and check the APR.

surfandturf · 27/01/2011 16:29

I thought some of their stuff looked really nice and went on line to order a catalogue. You have to sign up for an account before they will even send a catalogue I think and when I noticed the APR I thought it was right rip off so didn't bother.

woollyideas · 27/01/2011 16:32

I really go off celebs when they advertise or endorse stuff. Even national treasures like Julie Waters. What's she doing advertising Tesco FFS?

GetOrfMoiLand · 27/01/2011 16:38

Don't you have a choice - so if you buy some vile Polyester top and pay for it immediately you get charged £x, but if you spread the payment over a couple of months you pay £x plus interest?

jonicomelately · 27/01/2011 16:40

We would all probably have the brains to know not to go there but their younger, less financially experienced fans may not

TallulahdoesthehulainHawaii · 27/01/2011 16:42

So why should Holly willybooby et al be responsible?

jonicomelately · 27/01/2011 16:43

They are the face of the company and paid to promote the brand.

amothersplaceisinthewrong · 27/01/2011 16:45

YABU. Holly et al do not set the interest rates, and anyway interest rates can be avoided if you pay off the balance in full.

Worse IMO are the plethora of short term "payday" loans being advertised - the rate on some of them is nearly 3000 (yes three thousand percent.

TallulahdoesthehulainHawaii · 27/01/2011 16:47

But they are not, they are concessions within a brand.

It's like saying Miele or Dyson or Jamie Oliver should not be in the Argos catalogue because you can either pay outright or choose to have an account.

I'm all for celebs taking responsibility but it really is nonsensical.

Lonnie · 27/01/2011 16:53

Am I the only one whom read the title and thought that the question was going to be "before they open their mouths to speak?"

MsBethel · 27/01/2011 16:56

YANBU.

Everyone likes being paid large amounts of money for very little work.
Nobody likes businesses that prey on the vulnerable/desperate/financially illiterate.

It's a trade off. Which is more important: your bank balance, or the happiness of others? These ads give us an insight into the moral compass of these celebs.

Original poster

MarioandLuigi · 27/01/2011 16:58

But I can by those things elsewhere -If I wanted to, I couldnt buy HW dress from anywhere else than Very.

OP posts:

Original poster

MarioandLuigi · 27/01/2011 17:00

And another thing - so you buy something on interest free credit and have to pay it off in a year. If you dont tell them that the payments your making are to come off a specific item (by phoning Very to tell them), then they dont automaticaly take it off that item and you will get charged the full interest.

But thats just Very's tactics, nothing to do with those celebrity endorsements.

OP posts:

LordofthePies · 27/01/2011 17:55

I imagine none of these people could care less, all they care about is their fat fees.

And neither could Carol Vorderman when she chose to take money flogging dodgy loans to vulnerable people.

I agree that seeing so called celebs flogging stuff on TV makes me think less of them - it shows they can be bought and what they have to say generally is suspect in my opinion.

Flip