I haven’t tried TS (due to the price), and not sure I want to now, but I may have to reconsider because I love and miss velcro!!!
Thats so funny because I am finding I ONLY like having the velcro
2 Likes
The owner of Tailored Sportsman did not handle this well. I don’t think anyone can dispute that. However, as someone else has brought up, Bri is not a consumer. She is a reseller. She post under an Instagram account called BNJTackSales. Her only discloser is that she sells new and used products. She does not disclose wether she is a authorized vendor for any product she sells. She also moves a decent volume of TS products. One could easily infer that she is an authorized seller of anything on her page. The owner should have gone after her with a cease and desist or at the very least asked her to change her language to say that her products are consignment based even if it is new. By attacking her the way they did, it just makes them look stupid.
Tailored Sportsman may have an issue with some of their smaller vendors. They also are clearly not very aware of their public persona. However, Bri is not a legitimate vendor or a consumer. She resells their product for a profit without their consent despite what she represents herself as. That is where the issue lies here. Being a small business, customer service is everything. If someone is misrepresenting an affiliation with you that is a liability to your brand. Now TS may need to learn a lot about branding, but at the end of the day Bri is not a part of their brand and they have every right to make that clear and call her out on it through social media.
A person can be a consumer and a reseller. They are not mutually exclusive things.
12 Likes
Interesting first post.
She was gifted these breeches and they did not fit, and it was past the return period from the tack store, which was why she was selling them at a loss. She also posted this under her personal profile, not her tack sale page. This post was no different than any other person selling a pair of pants under their personal account.
16 Likes
@AffirmedHope You totally have a valid point about her personal page. I’m not saying the way the owner handled the situation was justified. She shouldn’t have even engaged. She clearly has dug herself into a big hole. All i’m pointing out is that the girl does make a profit on a fairly regular basis out of their product. It isn’t personal. From my own experience, I can understand why as a small business owner you’d be upset. However, there are definitely better ways to approach the situation (aka avoid social media).
1 Like
I didn’t originally mention this because I don’t think it changes that Susan totally mishandled the situation, and that regardless of the ethical practices OP isn’t doing anything “wrong”. But based on my previous interactions with the OP, I don’t believe anything she says about how she obtains the items she sells. I’ve seen DMs where She argued with a friend over the purchase price of an item they were trying to sell, and was rude and hostile when my friend stopped responding. I know for a fact she buys from the SmartPak clearance attic with the specific intention of jacking up the prices on the items she sells. Is it wrong or illegal? No, but it sure isn’t very ethical or honest in how she portrays her “non business”. So as far as that goes, it doesn’t change anything about the situation. It just makes it a little less cut and dry because I doubt she is being honest about how she got the breeches to begin with.
Before Ebay became mostly retailers selling people did stuff like this all the time.
I am not sure why you think it is not ethical or honest.
When Stateline Tack was near where I lived that was a pretty common way for people to make some extra money. Shop around the clearance area and find really good deals and put it up on Ebay or sell it at a tack exchange.
There is risk there to the person buying and selling. They have to have some knowledge of their market.
When Stateline left and had everything on total mark-down people went crazy buying and then re-selling.
I think it is a smart way to make some money if you have the time and willingness to do it.
If Bri (? on name, the person this thread is about) buys six pairs of barely worn TS breeches at a garage sale for $1 each because the women running the sale has no idea what those funky looking pants are, then Bri can turn around and sell them at a very large profit.
On the topic of this pair of breeches being re-sold - As long as Bri did not steal them, to me it does not matter how she got them. She owns them. She bought them or was gifted them. She has a right to sell them. She has no sales contract with TS.
If I buy a pair of TS breeches and six months later, after never wearing them decide I do not like the way they fit I can hand them over to a consignment store or a used good store or someone like Bri to re-sell.
16 Likes
As a former manager at LA Saddlery I could tell you stories about dealing with that woman. We carried the breeches because they sold, but as you can see, my old boss is done with the brand now.
8 Likes
Since you’re new here, I’ll be happy to inform you that OP = Original Poster, who on this topic is cruisecontrol. Cruisecontrol does not equal Brianna, the person who had the altercation with Susan Isaacs, owner of TS. Be careful who you’re accusing in your posts.
13 Likes
Susan was probably extra defensive because this happened right after they did a week of no MAP pricing on colored TS, and she had a lot if complaints from stores. Also, they may have been past the return date with the store, but every retail store I have ever worked at will exchange for the correct size of the same item after the date they will exchange for a refund.
Big fat “so what?” None of that even comes close to justifying her flying off the handle at an end consumer.
12 Likes
Geez, all sorts of newbies coming out of the woodwork to defend Tailored Sportsman. I wonder how different their IP addresses are? Hmmmnnn.
16 Likes
And the end result of Susan Isaacs’ haranguing Brianna, the private seller, is that it got spread over the horsey internet and everyone else who had a TS horror story to share decided to post their experiences too. A perfect example of one incident mushrooming into a big black cloud of negative publicity.
8 Likes
That’s exactly how I see it. TS gets THEIR money from selling to a retailer. The Retailer sells to Consumer. If consumer decided to sell them for 1 million dollars, because George Morris wore them, or set them on fire, whatever they decide to do after that point is their decision. The Retailer sold them at an agreed upon price (WHATEVER it may have been) that is not on the consumer. When the Consumer decides whatever to do to with said product… it is not up to TS or Retailer as they have already received their cost and profit from that item. TS should be thrilled that their breeches apparently hold their value so well.
The only way Bri could really be at fault is if she is underhandedly getting her consignment items illegally. But, if she is purchasing through bargain basement closeout sections, (the retailer is offering at that price) or people are just sending their unwanted items to consign, it really isn’t TS business.
I have a hard time believing that the stores are telling her that they are unhappy and wanting her to do something about the situation. That dog doesn’t hunt for me…
11 Likes
I’m happy to inform you that I’m aware of what it means. If you read my earlier posts in this thread, I specify FB OP. I figured since I had done it earlier I didn’t need to continue since it’s obvious who I’m referring to.
I 100% agree with you and that Brianna’s not doing anything wrong or illegal. TS owner was in the wrong all day long. Think I’ve been pretty clear about that. I’m just trying to shed some light that Brianna’s name has been kicking around the used tack sale game online for awhile, and that’s probably why TS owner targeted her over one pair of breeches. Still unprofessional and not acceptable behavior on the owner’s part.
Yes, because a topic with four pages of replies means we can CLEARLY memorize each post for interpretation later down the line. If this is the case why not refer to it as “FB OP” or really, FB seller. Much more clearer and less up for interpretation. Also, as a newbie, you may not know that a lot of posters don’t read each topic end-to-end and take notes on who abbreviates as such.
Funny, a newbie on such a hot topic with no other commentary on all of COTH… me smells an alter!
13 Likes
Wow, what gave it away? Could it be that the word “Alter” is in my user name? What ingenious detective work you’ve done!
Also, I’m aware not everyone reads an entire thread. That said, one would have to be pretty daft to not realize based on the context of my post who I was referring to. But then again based on your other posts to me, I shouldn’t be surprised that you couldn’t figure it out.
Back to the original topic:
Ultimately I think we’re in an era where customer service can make or break a company. TS has been fortunate that it’s enjoyed having the status of being the “brand du jour” for quite some time. It’s possible they felt secure in that status that they didn’t see the necessity of employing best business practices (i.e.: customer service oriented, service first, positive product experiences). This has clearly come back to give them a bit of a blow. The long term longevity of the brand is going to rely either on adapting their business model or hope they maintain the status symbol iconology (never a sure thing).
to this situation specifically, if the buyer didn’t buy direct from TS (i.e.: not a contracted distributor/vendor of the brand) it does not matter what she sells the breeches for. the fact she runs a tack exchange, has bought stuff low to sell high, had these and couldn’t return, or anything else I’ve been seeing, has no bearing on the situation. It sounds as if she has no contract, never has, and never will, with TS to sell. She isnt doing business with TS. TS never should have engaged. Their vendor policies are not applicable to non vendor sellers.
11 Likes
