A Good Op Shop Sells 'Fun', Not Just Offcasts
Jordan Kelly • 2 February 2024

Why do some op shops have great stock and some have total crap?

Op shops can be SUCH fun. And they can also be handy.


They can serve any purpose from putting a spark in a boring weekend afternoon (a fun "op shop crawl" with the girls), to a great find in a new town, to a cheap place to get a couple of new saucepans (in the unlikely event that you, like me, are the worst cook on the block and need to regularly replace yours).


But have you noticed that some have SO much nicer, classier clothes and general stock, than others?


I have an observation to make as to why . . . . and I think it's fair to say it's more than just a random hypothesis.


It's this:


It's the quality, diligence, and care factor, of the staff (whether paid or volunteers) - most especially, the shop's manager.


Let me give you an example very much on the positive side of the equation.


I have lived - on and off, over the years - in many different suburbs of Wellington.  And for a while, back in circa 2015, 2016 and 2017, there was a hospice op shop in Petone, down a side street between Jackson Street (the main street) and The Esplanade.


This particular hospice op shop outlet was spectactular (NB:  It's shifted locations and I can't vouch for it now). An absolute Aladdin's cave . . . a veritable department store both of classy, fascinating, well-presented and also well-organised pre-loved merchandise. (It was also the sort of op shop where you'd never put your hand in the pocket of a garment you were trying on and find a used tissue in there.)


It's About the Jockey Not Always the Horse


The obvious question that would have had to have come to mind for any op shopper frequenting this outlet would have been:  How come THIS particular op shop has such outstanding stock?


One very obvious answer is that the manager of the store managed it like her own. She was clearly passionate about the whole "op shop" concept and loved what she did. And it not only made browsing or buying there a nice experience, it's my observation that it's the very reason that store had such impressive quality stock.


Here's what I observed:


When someone came in with a bag of clothes or other forms of donation, she would graciously accept the bag or box, delve into it with the requisite level of interest and awe, and thank the donor profusely both for their generosity and for their interesting / quality (fill in the blank) donations.


I actually think it was just her gracious personality, but it was also a jolly smart business move.


Here's What NOT To Do


Because here's what else I've observed in some op shops, by contrast:


Someone will come in with a bag or box of clothes, and the stern and not-particularly-friendly person behind the counter will give an instructional nod to the donor, indicating where they are to leave it . . . before continuing with whatever they were doing.


So you tell me:  If you're a bit of a clothes-a-holic and you have really nice stuff but it's time to part with some of it, which of the above recipient organisations would you prefer to donate it to?


And where would you prefer to browse and shop? With Fun Lady or Frosty Face?


You know, I'm betting that 90% of shoppers in charity outlets don't actually have any real tangible need to be in there shopping. It's the fun of the browse, the fun of the find, and even the fun of the interchange with the personnel behind the counter.


I think the customer-facing personnel of op shops can - over time - make or break the persona of the actual outlet itself.


Example:


There's a great Salvation Army op shop in Woodville, in the Tararua region. The store manager and one of her off-siders are a barrel of laughs. They really made the personality of the store. I went in there often when I passed through e.g. on my way to Napier - where, at the time, I used to travel to, often.


But the last time (or maybe two times) I went in there, the woman behind the counter was as frosty as a mid-winter day. I've never been back.


Another example: 


There's a fabulous little Vinnies op shop in Carterton. Well, there's nothing that remarkable about it, I suppose, other than the actual people behind the counter.


I've been in there a few times for anything from a replacement saucepan lid, to a sun hat, to navigational directions. I teasingly refer to it as Carterton's "Harrod's", and I do so because of the "people factor" and the fact that, with their individual and collective sense of humour, they appear to appreciate the compliment.


So, anyway, you get the point. There are some businesses that are as much about friendliness and personality as they are about the actual merchandise. (And, in the case of op shops, arguably, the staff's / volunteers' respect and appreciation actually influences, if not dictates, the quality of the merchandise.)






Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 21 April 2025
AI & Robotics Expert Provides Commentary on Skinny's New 'Brand Ambassador'
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
Err . . . No Conflict of Interest Here, At All?
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
You Know It's Bad When Even Mainstream Medical Journals Are Forced to Report On It
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
More on the BUPA international chain of houses-of-horror . . .
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I've Been Tracking Abuse-in-Aged-Care-Facilities for A While Now . . . and Something HAS to Be Done About this Almighty Horror Show
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I'm SO Glad I Manage to Survive Without A Cell Phone . . .
by Jordan Kelly 5 March 2025
Breathing in Foul-Smelling Emissions from Over the Fence? House Filling up with Toxic Fumes? Getting Your Washing Smoked Out? Here Are Your Rights.
by Jordan Kelly 26 February 2025
Americans are in love with Karoline Leavitt, the new, 27-year-old Whitehouse Press Secretary. She is eloquent, has a razor-sharp wit and a speed-of-light response formulation time, is meticulously prepared . . . and is fiercely loyal to the boss. However . . . At this morning's press briefing she showed a crack - a potential big negative -in her otherwise impeccable and impenetrable modus operandi. The layman audience didn't pick it up; the glowing compliments continued to avalanche in. But I saw a hint of the old politician and traditional press secretary sleight of hand: When a reporter asked her about the seriousness of tonight's deadline for all Federal government staff to respond to Elon Musk's / DOGE's "send us 5 things you did last week" V2 email, she pulled out the old "reframe the question and monologue it back to something positive and be emphatic to take the emphasis off your redirection" trick. (It's between 9.47 minutes and 13.54 minutes in. Particularly note the clarity and simplicity of the second reporter's key question i.e. will Federal employees be fired if they ignore Musk's email for a second time ? Watch .) There it was . . . that tired old advice STILL given out to politicians by their media training PR consultant hacks. I've commented on this previously here . And while I think it's disingenuous to do it at all, it's wholly inadvisable to do it if you're not particularly good at it. Under the headline, ' Minister of Police vs Jack Tame ', I gave an in-action example, including with the link to the interview and the timestamp at which Mitchell embarrassed himself mightily (albeit he bulldozed on, completely oblivious). While Leavitt employed the technique (which I prefer to call a "tactic") skilfully, that skill was more of a mechanical one in her case.. Whereas, when Trump uses it (which he does frequently), he's a master at it. His charismatic natural slide into an alternative impassioned point or story is so natural. So, well . . . Trump. Trump will always get away with it. It's baked into his style. But Leavitt will only get away with it for as long as the puppy love phase lasts and her halo continues to shine so brightly. At some point, if she employs it too regularly, the average citizen out there in viewer land will realise that she's not actually answering the question. I don't think she'll ever be seen as negatively as Biden's "press secretary" (if you could call her that) Karine Jean-Pierre, of course, but Leavitt's podium is at such a currently great height that she has a long way to fall if she does. Notwithstanding her exuberant youth, captivating good looks and "don't fck with me" forceful manner, there's one thing that pisses off the press and the punters alike. And that's repeatedly not giving straight answers to straight questions. So it was a disappointment to see her pull this one out the bag so early in her tenure as hallowed Whitehouse Press Secretary - since its emergence doesn't augur well going forward. I mean, just to know that she would resort to it whenever she felt it expedient. The Observational Minutiae By way of further observation, watch carefully as the second reporter comes in with a determination to get the straight answer the first one didn't succeed in getting. At this point, if you're a keen observer of human behaviour and responses, you'll notice Leavitt is slightly pushed off her confident footing. She makes two grammatical stumbles: she first said "Elon come in" instead of "Elon came in". Then she transposed two words slightly further on. When the second reporter kept pressing her, she defensively snapped, "Are my press briefings not good enough for you, Jackie?" Not good. She doesn't like being pressed so hard. She needs to get used to it, or there'll be an increasing number of moments when she comes at least slightly unstuck behind the podium. 
by Jordan Kelly 25 February 2025
JUST IN: PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF REPUBLICAN SENATOR MIKE LEE OF UTAH. Calling for the United States' complete withdrawal from the UN, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act ,. The DEFUND Act "addresses grave issues of national sovereignty and fiscal accountability which have plagued US. involvement in the UN". Co-sponsored in the Senate by Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn and Rick Scott, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and Representative Chip Roy (also Republicans) the accompanying comments by Senator Lee read: "No more blank checks for the United Nations. Americans' hard-earned dollars have been funneled into initiatives that fly in the face of our values, enabling tyrants, betraying allies, and spreading bigotry "With the DEFUND Act, we're stepping away from this debacle. If we engage with the UN in the future, it will be on our terms, with the full backing of the Senate and an iron-clad escape clause." He said the UN had betrayed U.S. trust repeatedly, and that the country should not "to be their cash cow" while the UN undermines the U.S.'s own national security and interests. Meantime, Senator Blackburn said: “ The DEFUND Act will stop all forms of U.S. financial support to the UN and hold this wayward organisation accountable for placating Hamas terrorists and the Chinese Communist Party.” Meantime, Senator Chip Roy commented: “From UNRWA actively protecting Hamas and acting against our ally Israel, and delaying condemnation of Hamas, to China being elected to the 'Human Rights Council,' to the propagation of climate hysteria, covering for China's forced abortion and sterilisation programs . . . the UN's decades-old, internal rot once again raises the questions of why the United States is even still a member or why we're wasting billions every year on it."
Show More