Having occasionally watched her videos in the past and watching this one in full, I feel as though there were errors on both sides that compounded, and lots of miscommunication/talking across one another.
1. Unfortunately, lot of the communication happened over email, without the benefit of seeing body language or responding to social cues. Seeing emails, I can understand how an SA would feel that Mel was inappropriately pushy. In particular, many of the details given (birthday, pregnancy updates, anniversary details, illness/surgery, etc.) could read, without any context, as "guilting" the SA into making an offer. In another context, they might be interpreted as friendly conversation! But I understand why an SA, especially once specific financial details were being mentioned in the context of requesting a bag, might alert a manager, so that they could keep an eye on what might develop into a more concerning situation.
2. Related, it's clear that Mel didn't think that her communications were pushy or trying to "guilt". Rather, following the sort of advice common online, she thought she was establishing a "personal connection" with her SA by sharing details of her life and providing specific rationale for why she wanted a bag at a particular time. Perhaps her previous SAs responded well to this! I think this is a valuable lesson in how tricky "personal connections" with SAs can be, and how communication via email/text can be easily misunderstood.
3. I understand Mel's general frustrations, specifically having 3 SAs leave the boutique in the space of a couple of years. This is not entirely uncommon in retail, but nonetheless decreases customer satisfaction and is very unfortunate. I also get being frustrated about the opaque nature of B/K/C offers, especially when you can see that others are getting offers, and I too wish that H would develop ways to be more upfront about bag availability.
4. Given what we've been told of the call, and assuming that's the whole story, the HR call seems inappropriate. A company certainly has the obligation to protect its employees, and even to monitor situations that might escalate, but nothing in the communication we saw was threatening or dangerous. It would have been much more appropriate for the manager to have a private conversation and to offer to reassign Mel to another SA that she might form a better relationship with. Of course, at that point if I were Mel I'd still take my business elsewhere--I'd assume it was unlikely I'd get approved for a bag from that manager--but it might have saved some of the sense of hurt and embarrassment at being named a health and safety threat by strangers who had no firsthand knowledge of the situation.
