Treatment in Hermes Stores

[etoupebirkin]

I've never had an issue with any other luxury brand. I don't own any handbag that isn't a designer brand. I walk into chanel and if they have the bag I'm looking for, they sell it to me. I shouldn't have to purchase second hand. I'm not really worried about getting a birkin from a specific store, I know that there are stores around the world you can walk in and get one if they have one, so it's a moot point. I'm mainly speaking on the opinion of women on here that think they deserve preferential treatment because they spend more money there than I do and that makes them more valued as a customer. Obviously someone who loves everything hermes makes and considers it "their brand" will spend more than I. I would never tell someone looking for a chanel flap that I deserve it more and they can go get theirs from secondhand if they want one, that's preposterous.

I beg to differ.

I've been a loyal customer of my store for 20+ years. I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars there. I'm glad that I get preferential treatment. I've earned it. My store knows my wish list an lets me know when my items come in.

If you don't like the politics, resellers are the best route.

While I certainly can sympathize with your frustration, my advice is to develop a relationship with a store and a SA, then your chances of getting a coveted bag increase.

 

[Nahreen]

I beg to differ.

I've been a loyal customer of my store for 20+ years. I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars there. I'm glad that I get preferential treatment. I've earned it. My store knows my wish list an lets me know when my items come in.

If you don't like the politics, resellers are the best route.

While I certainly can sympathize with your frustration, my advice is to develop a relationship with a store and a SA, then your chances of getting a coveted bag increase.

I understand your point. At the same time I feel sad it works that way, it sort of turns me off. It is not only H, other companies work that way to. We have a designer store here selling multiple brands. One of the SAs was not as helpful as the others and sometimes ignored me when I was in the shop. After I asked them to order a particular Mulberry for me I always get very nice treatment from her.

 

[Suncatcher]

I have to say I find that ridiculous. I know it's a personal opinion but "loyal customers" should not get dibs. My money is just as good as your money and if they have an item available for purchase I should be able to buy it. Resellers 1. I shouldn't have to go to a reseller when there are bags available in a store 2. They charge a ridiculous premium and when I'm already gonna throw down $20k I should have to pay an extra $5k to a "loyal customer" trying to make a quick dollar. I myself do not love H as a brand. I think their scarves are ugly and most of the jewelry as well. I don't particularly like any other bags besides the Birkin and Constance. I shouldn't have to go into their store and buy a bunch of crap I don't like or want just to be deemed fit enough to purchase the one thing I do want.

Since it appears that my post angered you a lot, then perhaps I should respond.

It is question of supply and demand. For every 1 birkin there are probably 100 people who desire it. Maybe more. How does the store then allocate the one purse? I won't speak for any SA but if I were an SA I would allocate it to one of my loyal customers. And not to a walk-in. And definitely not to someone who finds my products "ugly" or "crap". Companies do this routinely. Airlines give special rewards for its most frequent fliers. Hotels do the same with its most loyal customers. And so on and so forth.

My comment about going to the resellers is that we often want instant gratification. I decide I want something and then I go to buy it. This doesn't work at Hermes, unfortunately. The time between desire and actual receipt of a birkin can take weeks, months or years. So my comment to those people who want instant gratification but can't wait is that resellers represent a viable option. Is it perfect? No, but it does address the instant desire need. I think this is better than having no option. And I'm not making the rules, only observing them.

Hopefully this will calm your anger at my post.

 

[Mindi B]

Since it appears that my post angered you a lot, then perhaps I should respond.

It is question of supply and demand. For every 1 birkin there are probably 100 people who desire it. Maybe more. How does the store then allocate the one purse? I won't speak for any SA but if I were an SA I would allocate it to one of my loyal customers. And not to a walk-in. And definitely not to someone who finds my products "ugly" or "crap". Companies do this routinely. Airlines give special rewards for its most frequent fliers. Hotels do the same with its most loyal customers. And so on and so forth.

My comment about going to the resellers is that we often want instant gratification. I decide I want something and then I go to buy it. This doesn't work at Hermes, unfortunately. The time between desire and actual receipt of a birkin can take weeks, months or years. So my comment to those people who want instant gratification but can't wait is that resellers represent a viable option. Is it perfect? No, but it does address the instant desire need. I think this is better than having no option. And I'm not making the rules, only observing them.

Hopefully this will calm your anger at my post.

Well-said.

 

[VigeeLeBrun]

I beg to differ.

I've been a loyal customer of my store for 20+ years. I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars there. I'm glad that I get preferential treatment. I've earned it. My store knows my wish list an lets me know when my items come in.

If you don't like the politics, resellers are the best route.

While I certainly can sympathize with your frustration, my advice is to develop a relationship with a store and a SA, then your chances of getting a coveted bag increase.

Agreed, +1.

 

[chicinthecity777]

I'm obviously not comparing myself to royals or celebrities, that's a given. I'm talking about everyday regular women that work for their money and reward themselves with bags. I would expect the queen of England to get preferential treatment -_-

I am sorry but you have completely missed the point here! Nobody is comparing you with royalties! And a lot of celebrities and socialites buy from resellers and that is a fact! Hence the price was driven so high.

I am an everyday regular woman who worked very hard for my money and LOVE Hermes items, not just that trophy Birkin bag. Over the years, I have bought from scarves to shawls to jewellery (costume and fine), homeware (dinner plates, wallpaper and plan to get more), men's wear, beach wear, SLGs all sorts. I have a great relationship with my store and my SA and SM. I have been invited to events, have been sent Christmas cards, given small gifts etc. I am not a VIP at Hermes in any financial sense but when I visit, my SA always made me feel that I was one! So I would like to think my "money" at Hermes do count more than some random people who turns up a the store demanding their god-given rights to a Birkin!

 

[chicinthecity777]

I beg to differ.

I've been a loyal customer of my store for 20+ years. I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars there. I'm glad that I get preferential treatment. I've earned it. My store knows my wish list an lets me know when my items come in.

If you don't like the politics, resellers are the best route.

While I certainly can sympathize with your frustration, my advice is to develop a relationship with a store and a SA, then your chances of getting a coveted bag increase.

Everything said here!

 

[BostonGirl88]

I think it depends on the degree of preferential treatment involved.

Scenario 1: A new shipment arrives. SA calls loyal customer to inform them of said shipment, pointing out items loyal customer would particularly like. Loyal customer is delighted and asks SA to prepare a red Birkin included in the new shipment for viewing next week. This scenario is probably commonplace, and I don't see anything wrong with the SA giving the loyal customer preferential intel.

Scenario 2: That afternoon, a new customer walks in the store and asks if they have any red Birkins available. SA says they have none, even though they do. This sort of preferential treatment is what I find unacceptable--it's dishonest. I don't think an SA should lie about merchandise for anyone, unless there is an actual purchase agreement involved. In this sense, all customers should have the same chance of getting the item--everyone has their own luck, and maybe this time it's the new customer's turn.

Scenario 3: New customer walks in and asks if they have any red Birkins available. SA says they do and shows it to new customer but informs her that someone else has already expressed interest in it. If new customer still falls in love with it and buys it, SA calls loyal customer immediately to tell her the bad news. If new customer doesn't buy it, SA calls loyal customer and asks her if she would like to view it sooner since someone else looked at it in the store today.

 

[luckylove]

Hmm... In scenario 3, if I were customer number one and my SA contacted me about a bag and agreed to hold for me, I would be pretty upset if it were sold out from under me if the agreement was to hold it for me until a specified date. Loyalty is a two way street... I am just saying...

There have been times where I have been shown a bag on hold for someone else, if it was something on my wish list, I have always asked my SA to let me know if the other customer declines it. Common courtesy on everyone's part and good for building long term happy relationships with SA.

 

[BostonGirl88]

I think in your perspective, the loyal customer is more or less sure of buying it, but that wasn't what I wanted to portray. The loyal customer likes the idea of the item, but isn't into it enough to make a commitment, that's why she waits until next week to see it. That isn't an actual purchase agreement, so the bag is fair game. On the other hand, there IS a purchase agreement if the bag was on pre-order (obviously! Haha!) or if loyal customer was like, "A red Birkin! I will get there today! I so want it!" so the SA can hold it. Perhaps a better way would be for the SA to call the loyal customer while showing new customer the bag, so loyal customer can decide if she wants it enough to commit to buying it? If yes, then SA can hold and new customer can pre-order. If not, new customer walks home happy or loyal customer goes home happy next week.

 

[mistikat]

I think it depends on the degree of preferential treatment involved.

Scenario 1: A new shipment arrives. SA calls loyal customer to inform them of said shipment, pointing out items loyal customer would particularly like. Loyal customer is delighted and asks SA to prepare a red Birkin included in the new shipment for viewing next week. This scenario is probably commonplace, and I don't see anything wrong with the SA giving the loyal customer preferential intel.

Scenario 2: That afternoon, a new customer walks in the store and asks if they have any red Birkins available. SA says they have none, even though they do. This sort of preferential treatment is what I find unacceptable--it's dishonest. I don't think an SA should lie about merchandise for anyone, unless there is an actual purchase agreement involved. In this sense, all customers should have the same chance of getting the item--everyone has their own luck, and maybe this time it's the new customer's turn.

Scenario 3: New customer walks in and asks if they have any red Birkins available. SA says they do and shows it to new customer but informs her that someone else has already expressed interest in it. If new customer still falls in love with it and buys it, SA calls loyal customer immediately to tell her the bad news. If new customer doesn't buy it, SA calls loyal customer and asks her if she would like to view it sooner since someone else looked at it in the store today.

If the bag is on hold for someone, then it isn't available. And if loyal customer one passes, there is likely a long list of other loyal customers who have expressed interest in a red Birkin and who would be called next. So it wouldn't be available to the new walk in customer either.

 

[BostonGirl88]

I'm sure it's unlikely that a bag as iconic as the Birkin is just readily available, but these are hypothetical scenarios.

If by "on hold" you mean that the loyal customer has already made a commitment to buy it, then you're right that it isn't available and the SA wouldn't be dishonest if she says it is, in fact, unavailable to the new customer. On the other hand, if loyal customer is just interested in the item but has made no commitment to actually buying it, then it's fair game.

 

[mistikat]

I'm sure it's unlikely that a bag as iconic as the Birkin is just readily available, but these are hypothetical scenarios.

If by "on hold" you mean that the loyal customer has already made a commitment to buy it, then you're right that it isn't available and the SA wouldn't be dishonest if she says it is, in fact, unavailable to the new customer. On the other hand, if loyal customer is just interested in the item but has made no commitment to actually buying it, then it's fair game.

As soon as the salesperson puts the bag aside - it's on hold. It doesn't have anything to do with the person's decision to buy, as far as I'm concerned.

And in Hermes world, none of this applies. It isn't fair game once it's put on hold. And shouldn't be. On hold is on hold. If the person waiting to see it turns it down, then it's the salesperson's decision as to whom it would be offered to next.

If they wanted to make people put down a payment to hold a bag, they would.

 

[BostonGirl88]

The question is, should you preclude another person who is ready to buy in favor of a person who is not sure? Is this degree of preferential treatment fair? I don't think so, and it makes me sad to think that anyone would think it is. Maybe I'm too young and naive.

I'm not sure if the statement: "If the person waiting to see it turns it down, then it's the salesperson's decision as to whom it would be offered to next." is a statement of opinion or a statement of fact, but I'm horrified to hear it. SA's have the right to inform anyone and everyone who they think may be interested in an item about an item, but I don't think they have the authority to sell it to exclusively to those people! Spread Hermes love, not war!

 

[mistikat]

The question is, should you preclude another person who is ready to buy in favor of a person who is not sure? Is this degree of preferential treatment fair? I don't think so, and it makes me sad to think that anyone would think it is. Maybe I'm too young and naive.

I'm not sure if the statement: "If the person waiting to see it turns it down, then it's the salesperson's decision as to whom it would be offered to next." is a statement of opinion or a statement of fact, but I'm horrified to hear it. SA's have the right to inform anyone and everyone who they think may be interested in an item about an item, but I don't think they have the authority to sell it to exclusively to those people! Spread Hermes love, not war!

You can make up as many scenarios as you want, but that's just the way it is at Hermes. I don't find it unfair at all. See all the previous posts on why this isn't considered to be unfair by regular customers.