Lorraine shot up leap and bounds for me... especially shooting down that arrogant Phil and his doxy.... both of who crash dived (well not Phil.. he could go no lower anyway) in my expectations by not trying at all, so full of confidence they could make Lorraine their patsy... I'm glad she revealed the relationship that had made them such bad candidates and so unprofessional.
You see, this is the sort of hysterical reaction that really works against people who try to put the case for tolerance in a quiet and gentle manner that people are not going to 'dig in' against.
Just calm down, take a deep breath, and think about what I said.
Yes, I said it relates to protecting a young child because that is the context in which Mona spoke.
In the very next clause I then say: "something a lot of parents get irrational about.
The comment was made in the context of protecting a young child but it was irrational.
If you can avoid going off on one long enough to get to the end of the sentence you are more likely to understand what is being said rather than what your own prejudices twist the first few words to mean.
Mona only did so well because lorraine was so rubbish and in fairness to lorraine she didnt have a full team working with her apart from jasmina and ben, kate is still my fav to win and now that philip has left she will bounce back and will defo have a point to prove in the next task
Suppose that every one in Lorraine's team was working on full capacity. An assumption of £500 sales per each one in the other subteam is very optimistic given that:
Lorraine sold for £807,
Yasmina sold for £495,
and that most of their sales came from the leads. Their total would have been:
£(500x3) + £1302= £2802
Mona's team sold for £4501 with Mona selling £2447 without any leads!!! Therefore, Lorraine would have still lost by £1701 in a best case scenario.
Clearly, Lorraine lost the task because:
1- Mona's product selection was better than Lorraine's.
2- Mona's sales ability was superior to Lorraine's
Mmm, but I think your interpretation is most likely to be correct because:
1) History suggests that it is
2) In the previews Lorraine appeared to be neither drunk nor particularly hungover.
According to tabloid reports - if they can be trusted! - it was a 2-day task and she got drunk at the end of day 1. So it's possible the previews are from day 1 and not from day 2, when she would have been hungover.
Suppose that every one in Lorraine's team was working on full capacity. An assumption of £500 sales per each one in the other subteam is very optimistic given that:
Lorraine sold for £807,
Yasmina sold for £495,
and that most of their sales came from the leads. Their total would have been:
£(500x3) + £1302= £2802
Mona's team sold for £4501 with Mona selling £2447 without any leads!!! Therefore, Lorraine would have still lost by £1701 in a best case scenario.
Clearly, Lorraine lost the task because:
1- Mona's product selection was better than Lorraine's.
2- Mona's sales ability was superior to Lorraine's
Well, Mona was just brilliant at her sales.
However, Lorraine seems to have come second.
I may have missed something but it doesn't look as if anyone other than superstar Mona exceeded Lorraine's sales figures.
According to tabloid reports - if they can be trusted! - it was a 2-day task and she got drunk at the end of day 1. So it's possible the previews are from day 1 and not from day 2, when she would have been hungover.
Well, we'll see.
If it's anything like the P-K love fest it the whole episode will probably consist of her giggling a couple of times in the evening and then saying she feels a bit rough first thing the next day.
If it's anything like the P-K love fest it the whole episode will probably consist of her giggling a couple of times in the evening and then saying she feels a bit rough first thing the next day.
Very possibly. With both Lorraine and Mona, I'll reserve judgement until I actually see the relevant episode.
I may have missed something but it doesn't look as if anyone other than superstar Mona exceeded Lorraine's sales figures.
Lorraine certainly didn't came second!!! Debra sold to the same pet shop that Lorraine and Yasmina went to for a total of £1974 which is more than twice what Lorraine sold in all her appointements!!! Add to that Lorraine's sales came from the appointments SAS arranged for them + the appointment Ben made.
I do think Debra got a raw deal in the editing here. She sold almost as well as Mona, but it got ignored in favour of pushing Mona as a superstar saleswoman, and indulging in Howard's whining over how Debra wouldn't let him do anything. Equally James and Howard got protected when they both barely sold anything - worse than Yasmina - yet they come out looking fairly strong.
As for whose sales came from Siralan's appointments, I'd guess that was Yasmina. She seemed to be taking the lead in the pitch to the "stylish" store.
Ben's appointment resulted in 50 cat-boxes being sold. I can't remember how much they cost, but that's £150-£250 worth I'm guessing.
Lorraine went down a trifle (and she was already low). I thought her pitches were terrible. Despite that, she took advantage of her position as leader to bag the Pets at Home pitch, and when Yasmina queried it she went all autocratic. She wanted it because she was selfish. I reckon it's the main reason she got the most sales.
You see, this is the sort of hysterical reaction that really works against people who try to put the case for tolerance in a quiet and gentle manner that people are not going to 'dig in' against.
Just calm down, take a deep breath, and think about what I said.
Yes, I said it relates to protecting a young child because that is the context in which Mona spoke.
In the very next clause I then say: "something a lot of parents get irrational about.
The comment was made in the context of protecting a young child but it was irrational.
If you can avoid going off on one long enough to get to the end of the sentence you are more likely to understand what is being said rather than what your own prejudices twist the first few words to mean.
But yo also said -
"And in some cases - physical safety for example - better safe than sorry seems a good philosophy."
I do think Debra got a raw deal in the editing here. She sold almost as well as Mona, but it got ignored in favour of pushing Mona as a superstar saleswoman.
Hardly a raw deal. One team can beat the other by the slightest margin yet one team would be rewarded and the other would have to explain to SAS 'where they went wrong'. Whether they were 'close' is irrelevant. At the end of the day Mona was the top seller and rightly so, got the praise for it.
I do think Debra got a raw deal in the editing here. She sold almost as well as Mona, but it got ignored in favour of pushing Mona as a superstar saleswoman,...
If one person is to be singled out for praise, it should be the person who sold/performed the most/best. In this case it was Mona by a considerable margin.
Almost doesn't quite cut it and it has nothing to do with the editing.
Mona went up. Good sales. However, I didn't see anything special in leadership. Her product selection was terrible, and her team sold nothing at all on the first day as a result. There was no reason she couldn't have picked products that would sell both days. There wasn't much for the leader to do, frankly, with individual order books.
Philip went down a little, although he's still not too bad and the best candidate fired so far. I'd rather hire him than Lorraine.
Lorraine went down a trifle (and she was already low). I thought her pitches were terrible. Despite that, she took advantage of her position as leader to bag the Pets at Home pitch, and when Yasmina queried it she went all autocratic. She wanted it because she was selfish. I reckon it's the main reason she got the most sales.
I don't quite get her position on Philip and Kate. She wasn't with them, so didn't know what went on, so why bring it up in the boardroom? She happened to be right, but if she'd already known they were like that why didn't she split them up? At best bad leadership, at worst sabotaging her own team. She comes across as quite an unpleasant person.
Kate went down for me in the sense that she wasn't as focussed on the task as usual. But she is still, for me, one of the strongest candidates and shown some of best management and team working skills. I do think she could have done a better job than Lorraine with the selling pitch to big firms.
Philip strangely went up for me. This is bearing in mind I loathed the guy before this week and saw him being quite sweet in some ways. His over-defense of how wonderful Kate was (selling etc..) in the boardroom was quite sweet and he came across really well in the aftershow. He certainly came across as being affected by Kate on the task; more so than she did.
Lorraine went down in my opinion. If she was worried about Phil/Kate's relationship affecting the task she should have split them up in the first place and taken one of them with her. But I think her feud with Philip and Ben's cockiness vs thinking Kate probably thought the same as Phil due to their "relationship" meant she got rid of her "enemies" imo. That isn't good team management. And Sir Allan surely couldn't think of hiring anyone in such a powerful role in his business who hasn't got good people skills in that she winds people up and has got some many people with such a low and disrespectful opinions. Managers don't have to be liked but do have to be respected. The likes of Philip may not have been liked by all, but their opinions were never disregarded so easily as Lorraines. And sympathy isn't a reason for her to be hired. And I wasn't impressed with her playing the relationship card, but Phil should have hit back that if she thought that she should have split them up.
As for Mona; she went up for me as she seemed a good sales person, but still not someone I've seen consistently perform well.
And Ben once again, only scraped through as he gave a lead. He did a poor job too.
Yasmina: No change of opinion. She is still one of my favourites.
Kate: She did badly this week and hardly featured last week. However, I am sure that she will pick herself up for the following tasks.
Mona: Went up in my estimation. At least we know that she can do something right: sell.
James, Howard, debra, and Ben: no change in opinion. They all have a good shot to be in the final 5.
Philip and Lorraine: Both went down in my estimation. Lorraine for being a poor team leader and her unethical approach to the boardroom, and Philip for not working hard enough to get the sales and for losing his temper in the boardroom.
Do you think Ben stands a shot in the final? I think, personally, he showed really poor leadership skills and made some almighty errors when he was PM. He's a bit too c*cksure of himself at times and not rightly so.
About Lorraine. Didn't she one week say she wanted to p*tch as it was one of her weaknesses and wanted the chance. she did a not so great job, but was respected for putting herself out there. So where did the comment come last week from her that she was a great seller and had lots of experience of corporate sales. I'm surprised noone has questionned how this was in direct contradiction to a few weeks back. Including how she defended herself in the boardroom and the low blow to Kate/Phil, I now think she is playing a game and trying the sympathy card to stop herself from being fired.
If one person is to be singled out for praise, it should be the person who sold/performed the most/best. In this case it was Mona by a considerable margin.
Almost doesn't quite cut it and it has nothing to do with the editing.
This week she did and deserves credit for that. But she hasn't been consistently the best. She has taken a step back on quite a few tasks and needs to continue on performance as she showed this week.
This week she did and deserves credit for that. But she hasn't been consistently the best. She has taken a step back on quite a few tasks and needs to continue on performance as she showed this week.
Neither has anyone else. The question was asked about this (or last) week's show.
Do you think Ben stands a shot in the final? I think, personally, he showed really poor leadership skills and made some almighty errors when he was PM. He's a bit too c*cksure of himself at times and not rightly so.
I don't like Ben as a person but I believe he is a much better candidate than Lorraine and Mona. As there are only 8 candidates left, it means he as a very good shot at the final 5, doesn't it? It depends on whether James will outperform Ben in the next few episodes.
Yes he was a lousy leader but his performance in the advertising task was arguably the best of all the candidates. He came up with the treasure idea and he was the one who pointed out to Kate that they should do something about the back of the box. While Kate gets a huge credit for the advertising task I believe Ben was the one who contributed the most and got little credit for it. Ben is also a good salesman as Paula herself admitted in the boardroom. He also arranged one of the appointments that contributed to Lorraine's sales. Add to that, he puts a great boardroom performance.
As I said he has an excellent shot at being in the final 5 but 0 chance at being in the finals because of his obvious flaws.
Under the circumstances, coming third doesn't say much about Lorraine, does it?
There are 3 factors that contributed to the sales of each candidate:
1) Product selection: in terms of saleability and suitability to the leads provided.
2) Which subteam? The subteam that is selling in Manchester and pitching to the leads provided by SAS had an advantage over the other subteam.
3) The number of pitches led by the candidate.
Lorraine's products were not highly saleable but were more suitable to the leads than Mona's. Therefore, Lorraine's decisions as a PM made it easier for her to sell better than her team members:
a) She chose to pitch to the leads and she sold in Manchester.
b) She chose to pitch to two of the three appointments and this is where the difference between Yamina's and Lorraine's sales figures came from.
The other subteam had to work harder in order to generate sales and they were not up to it. However, given how Lorraine pitched to the leads and to the petshop, it is reasonable to assume that the other subteam would have probably generated the same sales as Lorraine if not better.
What I am trying to say is that Lorraine's higher sales is hardly an indicator of a better sales ability. Had anyone of her team been given the same opportunity, they would have done at least as better as Lorraine if not better.
Well, NO ONE in Mona's team made anything from those so I thing we can pretty much discount that as a factor of any importance
It is a factor of importance when you are comparing them in terms of sales ability. Mona had to identify potential buyers, arrange appointments, and sell for them. Lorraine had all her appointments arranged for her and she couldn't even generate comparable sales figures.
Did anything get sold from that?
All the difference between Lorraine's and Yasmina's sales figures.
Lorraine shot up leap and bounds for me... especially shooting down that arrogant Phil and his doxy.... both of who crash dived (well not Phil.. he could go no lower anyway) in my expectations by not trying at all, so full of confidence they could make Lorraine their patsy... I'm glad she revealed the relationship that had made them such bad candidates and so unprofessional.
But she is a definite goner by the time she goes up again unless she shows some major improvement. Sir Alan was definately torn. She only was saved as she had some sales (even if they were poxy in comparison to the size of the co) and Philip was such an a** in the boardroom. If he had kept his cool, I'm not so sure Lorraine wouldn't have been fired.
Under the circumstances, coming third doesn't say much about Lorraine, does it?
There are 3 factors that contributed to the sales of each candidate:
1) Product selection: in terms of saleability and suitability to the leads provided.
2) Which subteam? The subteam that is selling in Manchester and pitching to the leads provided by SAS had an advantage over the other subteam.
3) The number of pitches led by the candidate.
Lorraine's products were not highly saleable but were more suitable to the leads than Mona's. Lorraine's decisions as a PM made it easier for her to sell:
a) She chose to pitch to the leads and she sold in Manchester.
b) She chose to pitch to two of the three appointments and this is where the difference between Yamina's and Lorraine's sales figures came from.
The other subteam had to work harder in order to generate sales and they were not up to it. However, given how Lorraine pitched to the leads and to the petshop, it is reasonable to assume that the other subteam would have probably generated the same sales as Lorraine if not better.
What I am trying to say is that Lorraine's higher sales is hardly an indicator of a better sales ability. Had anyone of her team been given the same opportunity, they would have done at least as better as Lorraine if not better.
It is a factor of importance when you are comparing them in terms of sales ability. Mona had to identify potential buyers, arrange appointments, and sell for them. Lorraine had all her appointments arranged for her and she couldn't even generate comparable sales figures.
This is really all just assumption on top of assumption, isn't it?
We see this on these threads all the time.
People have a candidate they favour and one they don't and desperately try and spin the actual results to show that they demonstrate the reverse of what they appear to.
Here we have Lorraine correctly picking items that the AS leads would buy and selling to them which the other team did not and a stoic attempt to spin that into a failure on her part.
Comments
Great reply. I am liking your posts.
Suppose that every one in Lorraine's team was working on full capacity. An assumption of £500 sales per each one in the other subteam is very optimistic given that:
Lorraine sold for £807,
Yasmina sold for £495,
and that most of their sales came from the leads. Their total would have been:
£(500x3) + £1302= £2802
Mona's team sold for £4501 with Mona selling £2447 without any leads!!! Therefore, Lorraine would have still lost by £1701 in a best case scenario.
Clearly, Lorraine lost the task because:
1- Mona's product selection was better than Lorraine's.
2- Mona's sales ability was superior to Lorraine's
Well, Mona was just brilliant at her sales.
However, Lorraine seems to have come second.
I may have missed something but it doesn't look as if anyone other than superstar Mona exceeded Lorraine's sales figures.
Well, we'll see.
If it's anything like the P-K love fest it the whole episode will probably consist of her giggling a couple of times in the evening and then saying she feels a bit rough first thing the next day.
Lorraine certainly didn't came second!!! Debra sold to the same pet shop that Lorraine and Yasmina went to for a total of £1974 which is more than twice what Lorraine sold in all her appointements!!! Add to that Lorraine's sales came from the appointments SAS arranged for them + the appointment Ben made.
OK, so she came third.
Well above Yasmina and streets ahead of any of the others.
Well, NO ONE in Mona's team made anything from those so I thing we can pretty much discount that as a factor of any importance
Did anything get sold from that?
As for whose sales came from Siralan's appointments, I'd guess that was Yasmina. She seemed to be taking the lead in the pitch to the "stylish" store.
Ben's appointment resulted in 50 cat-boxes being sold. I can't remember how much they cost, but that's £150-£250 worth I'm guessing.
Eh?
Yasmina had already shown how useless she was.
"And in some cases - physical safety for example - better safe than sorry seems a good philosophy."
What 'physical safety' were you refering to?
Anything that poses a physical threat.
Roads are an obvious example. Electrical equipment. Things that are cooking. Water.
Which kind of undemined your 'irrational' caveat.
I stand corrected.
Hardly a raw deal. One team can beat the other by the slightest margin yet one team would be rewarded and the other would have to explain to SAS 'where they went wrong'. Whether they were 'close' is irrelevant. At the end of the day Mona was the top seller and rightly so, got the praise for it.
Almost doesn't quite cut it and it has nothing to do with the editing.
Kate went down for me in the sense that she wasn't as focussed on the task as usual. But she is still, for me, one of the strongest candidates and shown some of best management and team working skills. I do think she could have done a better job than Lorraine with the selling pitch to big firms.
Philip strangely went up for me. This is bearing in mind I loathed the guy before this week and saw him being quite sweet in some ways. His over-defense of how wonderful Kate was (selling etc..) in the boardroom was quite sweet and he came across really well in the aftershow. He certainly came across as being affected by Kate on the task; more so than she did.
Lorraine went down in my opinion. If she was worried about Phil/Kate's relationship affecting the task she should have split them up in the first place and taken one of them with her. But I think her feud with Philip and Ben's cockiness vs thinking Kate probably thought the same as Phil due to their "relationship" meant she got rid of her "enemies" imo. That isn't good team management. And Sir Allan surely couldn't think of hiring anyone in such a powerful role in his business who hasn't got good people skills in that she winds people up and has got some many people with such a low and disrespectful opinions. Managers don't have to be liked but do have to be respected. The likes of Philip may not have been liked by all, but their opinions were never disregarded so easily as Lorraines. And sympathy isn't a reason for her to be hired. And I wasn't impressed with her playing the relationship card, but Phil should have hit back that if she thought that she should have split them up.
As for Mona; she went up for me as she seemed a good sales person, but still not someone I've seen consistently perform well.
And Ben once again, only scraped through as he gave a lead. He did a poor job too.
Do you think Ben stands a shot in the final? I think, personally, he showed really poor leadership skills and made some almighty errors when he was PM. He's a bit too c*cksure of himself at times and not rightly so.
About Lorraine. Didn't she one week say she wanted to p*tch as it was one of her weaknesses and wanted the chance. she did a not so great job, but was respected for putting herself out there. So where did the comment come last week from her that she was a great seller and had lots of experience of corporate sales. I'm surprised noone has questionned how this was in direct contradiction to a few weeks back. Including how she defended herself in the boardroom and the low blow to Kate/Phil, I now think she is playing a game and trying the sympathy card to stop herself from being fired.
This week she did and deserves credit for that. But she hasn't been consistently the best. She has taken a step back on quite a few tasks and needs to continue on performance as she showed this week.
Neither has anyone else. The question was asked about this (or last) week's show.
Totally true. Defnately some have been more consistent than others but they have all had a poor week at least once.
I thought the fm made the comment that Deborah's performance was underrated rather than dismissing Mona's efforts
I don't like Ben as a person but I believe he is a much better candidate than Lorraine and Mona. As there are only 8 candidates left, it means he as a very good shot at the final 5, doesn't it? It depends on whether James will outperform Ben in the next few episodes.
Yes he was a lousy leader but his performance in the advertising task was arguably the best of all the candidates. He came up with the treasure idea and he was the one who pointed out to Kate that they should do something about the back of the box. While Kate gets a huge credit for the advertising task I believe Ben was the one who contributed the most and got little credit for it. Ben is also a good salesman as Paula herself admitted in the boardroom. He also arranged one of the appointments that contributed to Lorraine's sales. Add to that, he puts a great boardroom performance.
As I said he has an excellent shot at being in the final 5 but 0 chance at being in the finals because of his obvious flaws.
Under the circumstances, coming third doesn't say much about Lorraine, does it?
There are 3 factors that contributed to the sales of each candidate:
1) Product selection: in terms of saleability and suitability to the leads provided.
2) Which subteam? The subteam that is selling in Manchester and pitching to the leads provided by SAS had an advantage over the other subteam.
3) The number of pitches led by the candidate.
Lorraine's products were not highly saleable but were more suitable to the leads than Mona's. Therefore, Lorraine's decisions as a PM made it easier for her to sell better than her team members:
a) She chose to pitch to the leads and she sold in Manchester.
b) She chose to pitch to two of the three appointments and this is where the difference between Yamina's and Lorraine's sales figures came from.
The other subteam had to work harder in order to generate sales and they were not up to it. However, given how Lorraine pitched to the leads and to the petshop, it is reasonable to assume that the other subteam would have probably generated the same sales as Lorraine if not better.
What I am trying to say is that Lorraine's higher sales is hardly an indicator of a better sales ability. Had anyone of her team been given the same opportunity, they would have done at least as better as Lorraine if not better.
It is a factor of importance when you are comparing them in terms of sales ability. Mona had to identify potential buyers, arrange appointments, and sell for them. Lorraine had all her appointments arranged for her and she couldn't even generate comparable sales figures.
All the difference between Lorraine's and Yasmina's sales figures.
But she is a definite goner by the time she goes up again unless she shows some major improvement. Sir Alan was definately torn. She only was saved as she had some sales (even if they were poxy in comparison to the size of the co) and Philip was such an a** in the boardroom. If he had kept his cool, I'm not so sure Lorraine wouldn't have been fired.
This is really all just assumption on top of assumption, isn't it?
We see this on these threads all the time.
People have a candidate they favour and one they don't and desperately try and spin the actual results to show that they demonstrate the reverse of what they appear to.
Here we have Lorraine correctly picking items that the AS leads would buy and selling to them which the other team did not and a stoic attempt to spin that into a failure on her part.
I find that quite amusing, really.