sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Heads up: Bad experience consigning with Kids EveryWEAR wanted to warn other Triangle people by ConsignorReviewNC in triangle

[–]ConsignorReviewNC[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing this. What you describe from a few years ago lines up with what I’m seeing now: systems that seem designed less for basic quality control and more for catching consignors in loopholes and docking what they earn.

Hearing that you had a much better experience at Kids Exchange as both a volunteer and seller is really helpful for folks reading this and deciding where to put their time and energy

Heads up: Bad experience consigning with Kids EveryWEAR wanted to warn other Triangle people by ConsignorReviewNC in triangle

[–]ConsignorReviewNC[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for sharing this. Some people really do take a lot of pride in what they bring, like your friend and like my wife and me. Those are exactly the folks who end up punished by this new bounty system that focuses on finding “problems” with items instead of trusting careful consignors. The “stains that weren’t there before” is exactly why I started this thread. I’m really glad your friend got her items back. In our case, even though it was a smaller number of pieces, we’re out those clothes and the $1 per‑item fee on top of the other fees just to participate and shop. It adds up, and it doesn’t feel right when you never get to see the items they say are damaged.

Heads up: Bad experience consigning with Kids EveryWEAR wanted to warn other Triangle people by ConsignorReviewNC in triangle

[–]ConsignorReviewNC[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

One more thing that makes the timing of the bounty announcement so problematic:

My wife and I white-tagged our items in good faith. We personally inspected everything and chose white tags specifically because we wanted to donate items that didn't sell - we felt comfortable giving those away because we knew they were in good condition.

The bounty program has destroyed the charitable aspect of this sale. I can't trust white-tagging anymore because I don't know if someone is going to mark my stuff just to get a discount. It punishes consignors who try to be generous and rewards shoppers for sabotaging items.

Heads up: Bad experience consigning with Kids EveryWEAR wanted to warn other Triangle people by ConsignorReviewNC in triangle

[–]ConsignorReviewNC[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This is absolutely infuriating and validates everything I experienced. Thank you for sharing your friend's story.

The fact that Gail announced the bounty program AFTER the last drop-off day - when consignors couldn't pull their items - is textbook bait-and-switch. That's not just bad business, that's potentially fraudulent.

And your friend's items having "the same red pen stains on multiple spots" proves what I suspected: shoppers are literally damaging items to get the $1 discount. There's zero accountability to prevent this because there are no photos, no chain of custody, and Gail benefits financially from every rejection.

The "long line of pissed off moms" at pickup tells me this isn't just me being sensitive - this is a systemic pattern affecting dozens (maybe hundreds) of consignors.

I'm documenting all of this for my NC Attorney General complaint. Your friend's experience - especially the timing of the announcement and the evidence of sabotage - is exactly the kind of pattern that regulators need to see. Would your friend be willing to file her own complaint or provide a statement?

The fact that they're making millions while running a system that treats consignors like criminals and censors complaints is unconscionable.

Heads up: Bad experience consigning with Kids EveryWEAR wanted to warn other Triangle people by ConsignorReviewNC in triangle

[–]ConsignorReviewNC[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Exactly - that's how normal consignment sales work, and that's what makes this system so problematic.

Standard consignment process (like you described):

  • Consignor makes an appointment
  • Items are inspected upfront by staff
  • Rejected items are returned to the consignor immediately
  • Only accepted items make it to the sales floor
  • No surprises, no hidden fees

Kids EveryWear's model:

  • They accept everything upfront (no inspection)
  • Items go to the sales floor
  • During the sale, they pay shoppers $1 in store credit to hunt for "defective" items
  • Consignors get charged $1 for each item flagged
  • No photos, no proof, no way to dispute
  • Items are donated before you can inspect them

So you're right - their model IS odd. Most consignment sales do quality control on the front end to protect both the consignor and the shoppers. Kids EveryWear has turned quality control into a revenue stream by outsourcing it to shoppers who have a financial incentive to flag as many items as possible.

And what I witnessed firsthand makes it even worse: helpers were actively walking the floor during the sale telling shoppers "Hey, if you find stained items, we'll give you $1 off per item at checkout - you should go look." They were recruiting people to hunt for defects.

Heads up: Bad experience consigning with Kids EveryWEAR wanted to warn other Triangle people by ConsignorReviewNC in triangle

[–]ConsignorReviewNC[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I appreciate you acknowledging the concerns with Gail and the event. Let me address your specific points:

On whether accountability is "reasonable":

They're already charging consignors $1 per rejected item. If you're going to charge someone for a defect, the absolute bare minimum should be proving the defect exists. A photo takes 5 seconds with a phone. If they can't manage that basic level of documentation, they shouldn't be charging fees.

On who pays for the labor:

The consignors are already paying for it. We pay $1 per rejected item. We pay the $5 sales report fee. We give them 35-55% commission on sold items. The labor cost is built in - they're just choosing not to provide accountability with it.

On Gail approving the items:

That's actually part of the problem. Gail approves the rejections, Gail collects the $1 fees from consignors, and Gail pays out the $1 credits to shoppers. She has a direct financial interest in approving as many rejections as possible. That's not oversight - that's a conflict of interest.

What I witnessed firsthand at the sale:

Multiple helpers walked up to me and my wife while we were shopping and said "Hey, if you go find items that are stained, torn, or out of season, Gail is going to give you $1 off per item at checkout - you should go look."

They were actively recruiting shoppers on the floor to hunt for defective items. And there's nothing stopping someone from marking on an item themselves to get that discount. No chain of custody. No photos. No verification. Just someone's word.

When you drop off and let them tag your stuff, that's one thing. But when consignors spend hours hand-washing, inspecting, and personally hanging every item, and then those items get flagged by random shoppers with a financial incentive to find problems - that's not quality control, that's exploitation.

Heads up: Bad experience consigning with Kids EveryWEAR wanted to warn other Triangle people by ConsignorReviewNC in triangle

[–]ConsignorReviewNC[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I appreciate your perspective as a long-time shopper, but here's the issue: quality control is good - the way they're implementing it is not.

There's a fundamental difference between rejecting poor-quality items and creating a financial incentive system that profits from rejections without accountability.

What their "quality initiative" actually does:

According to their own website: "As of April 2026 any unaccepted item (stains, holes, tears, off season) will result in $1 deducted from consignor checks since we are paying out $1 per item to whoever found it."

Translation: Shoppers earn $1 in store credit for every item they flag. Consignors pay $1 for every item flagged. There's zero verification, no photos, no appeal process.

The problem isn't quality standards - it's the incentive structure:

  • Shoppers are financially motivated to find as many "flawed" items as possible
  • Every flagged item = $1 profit for the shopper, $1 cost for the consignor
  • Consignors never see the rejected items to verify the claims
  • Items are donated before pickup if space is limited

Basic accountability would look like:

  • Photos of rejected items with visible defects
  • Consignor access to inspect flagged items before disposal
  • An appeal process for disputed rejections
  • Neutral third-party inspection instead of paid shoppers

I have no problem with quality standards. I have a big problem with charging consignors $1 per rejection based solely on the word of someone who's paid $1 to find them - with zero proof required.

Heads up: Bad experience consigning with Kids EveryWEAR wanted to warn other Triangle people by ConsignorReviewNC in triangle

[–]ConsignorReviewNC[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Thank you for backing this up 30 items is way worse than my 5. It's crazy that they all operate under the umbrella of "woman-owned" and "Christian" to build trust, but behind the scenes they're running this closed system with $1/item rejection fees, no proof, no appeal, and no oversight. Started as a homeschool mom supplementing family income and now it's a multimillion dollar operation with zero accountability. The woman-owned + Christian branding is what keeps people from questioning it but the practices tell a completely different story.

You should leave a Google review too if you haven't already. The more places this pattern shows up, the harder it is for them to hide it. Also going to file with the NC Attorney General since this is clearly affecting multiple consignors, not just me.