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.
And 50 to a major retailer nationwide is a poxy sale. It increased her figures but was a poor effort. They bought a test figure and that would have been much higher with a better seller. Her pitches were atrocious. You only had to listen to Mona to see the comparison. She sold more sleeping bags than were needed to that tiny store and Lrraine got the same number of sales from a major retailer. Poor in comparison. And it was a lead got by Ben.
And as Sir Alan said; they had an advantage as 2 pitches were set up with major retailers so by pickig something suiting the store they should have guaranteed themselves a sale as large store, if it suits their range would always buy a few to "test".
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.
But yet her sales didn't eve come close to a team who sold only on the second day to small outlets. I'm sorry but her pitch to the major pet store was atrocious. And as Lorraine herself admitted; they didn't pick really great items to sell as they had a hard time getting people to buy into them. Most of what we saw saw retailers very dismissive of the cat boxes. I think the bags were a better buy personally. I still think they should have gone with the ladder for hardware store and the sleeping bag/bag for bike.
None of the team really picked the best products for the retailers already set up. Lorraines actual buy ins from them were not large. How many sales did Lorraine make from her own appointments set up?
But yet her sales didn't eve come close to a team who sold only on the second day to small outlets. I'm sorry but her pitch to the major pet store was atrocious. And as Lorraine herself admitted; they didn't pick really great items to sell as they had a hard time getting people to buy into them. Most of what we saw saw retailers very dismissive of the cat boxes. I think the bags were a better buy personally. I still think they should have gone with the ladder for hardware store and the sleeping bag/bag for bike.
None of the team really picked the best products for the retailers already set up. Lorraines actual buy ins from them were not large. How many sales did Lorraine make from her own appointments set up?
Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin.
You can keep trying to spin it that she did badly but you cannot change the fact that she had the third highest sale in a task that AS had specifically said was about individual sales.
I do think Debra got a raw deal in the editing here. She sold almost as well as Mona
Did she? I thought Mona got £2447 and the rest of the team got £2054, so if Debra was nearly equal to Mona then James and Howard must have been very low.
When? I thought her pitching on this task was much better than Lorraine's, and she did well to jump in when John Lewis asked for exclusivity on task 3 and Debra didn't know what to say. I can't think of a task where Yasmina has pitched badly.
I think he's under-rated for the reasons Apprentice_Fan gives.
Also, if there's any sort of bias for an even ratio of sexes, any of the men could benefit. I'd be surprised if they go into the interview round with 4 girls and 1 boy, so one of the boys might get a boost to even it up. And the interview round is, in my opinion, rather random. I reckon I know Sir Alan pretty well, but I've got no idea which way the interviewers will jump, and the round is based not on what we've seen over the series but on their CVs, and that could be anything. So we might find that any of the apparently strong candidates comes a cropper there, and an outside candidate like Ben could reach the final.
Did she? I thought Mona got £2447 and the rest of the team got £2054, so if Debra was nearly equal to Mona then James and Howard must have been very low.
We see her write £1974 into her order book after one deal. Seeing as she sold over twice as much as Lorraine did, and Tern (who normally watches the showfairly assidiously) came away with impression she sold less than her, I'd say she definitely got a raw deal.
That's not to take anything away from Mona. She was clearly the best saleswoman on the day. But generally I prefer an edit which focuses on more than one person for praise when they deserve it. Otherwise it only fuels the "X does nothing/what does Y ACTUALLY DO?" crap.
This is really all just assumption on top of assumption, isn't it?
We see this on these threads all the time.
All the results we draw from the show are built upon a fundamental assumption: We assume the edit of the program is a true reflection of what really happened. Also business is built on assumptions. I don't understand your point really.
I made an assumption and it is a reasonable one: it is built on what we saw and common sense. I leave it to the reader of this thread to validate it.
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.
Like most people in this forum, I do have my favourites but I don't think I twisted any results to defend them. A summary of my post: Lorraine being the 3rd in terms of sales is hardly an indicator of her being a better sales woman than her team members given the circumstances (and her pitch). IMO Mona and Debra did much better - not only did they produce higher figures but they also planned their sales from A to Z unlike Lorraine.
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.
Lorraine did pick better products in terms of suitability to the leads. However, her products were worse in terms of saleability. With the products they chose, it was very difficult to make sales without any leads.
But generally I prefer an edit which focuses on more than one person for praise when they deserve it. Otherwise it only fuels the "X does nothing/what does Y ACTUALLY DO?" crap.
No it doesn't, I don't think there's anyone here who thinks Debra does nothing. There's is a big £500 gap between what Mona sold and what Debra sold. Debra was good no doubt but Mona was exceptional hence being praised on exceptional performance. How you can describe that as a 'raw deal', goodness knows. All this and yet Kate get's single out for praise as part of a team effort in a task where she hasn't thought of the main concepts. :rolleyes:
' Lorraine being the 3rd in terms of sales is hardly an indicator of her being a better sales woman than her team members given the circumstances '
What circumstances? They were selling the same things and you talk as if somehow getting a pitch = sales which it doesn't. The sub-team had at least two which they were unable to convert into sales. Lorraine may not be better all round but on thi task she out-performed them. The conjecture is pointless.
You can keep trying to spin it that she did badly but you cannot change the fact that she had the third highest sale in a task that AS had specifically said was about individual sales.
spin, spin, spin..doesn't change the fact that at Sir Alan's own admission it was close between her and Philip. She loses the next task; she is out the door. Sir Alan is not going to hire someone who is unable to get along with his employees and is constantly in arguments and feuds. It was simply a case of she was not as bbad as Philip. She goes up against anyone now left, she is likely to go.
I actually sympathised with her before this task. But at the end of the day, this is a job interview and interpersoal skills. And I'm 100% sure it does get noticed and compared employees overselling to a small store vs underselling to large stores. If this was a task only about sales and that all that mattered then why was it a close call to her being fired.
' Lorraine being the 3rd in terms of sales is hardly an indicator of her being a better sales woman than her team members given the circumstances '
What circumstances? They were selling the same things and you talk as if somehow getting a pitch = sales which it doesn't. The sub-team had at least two which they were unable to convert into sales. Lorraine may not be better all round but on thi task she out-performed them. The conjecture is pointless.
Where did I say "getting a pitch = sales"? I said the number of pitches a candidate gets is an important factor that contributes to their sales. Let's think about the following:
1- Did Lorraine arrange any of the 3 appointments?
2- Was her product selection the best choice to target those retailers?
3- Was her pitch an indicator of a good sales ability?
4- Were the other subteam's pitches worse than Lorraine's?
IMO the answer to each of the above questions is NO. Suppose that Ben and his subteam took on the appointments. I can't think of any reason why they couldn't have brought similar sales figures to Lorraine. That is why I said " Lorraine being the 3rd in terms of sales is hardly an indicator of her being a better sales woman than her team members given the circumstances".
I am not saying that Lorraine is worse than them in terms of sales. All I am saying is that any one of the remaining candidates would have delivered (at least) similar sales figures if they pitched to the same 3 retailors.
Where did I say "getting a pitch = sales"? I said the number of pitches performed by a candidate is an important factor that contributes to his/her amount of sales. Let's think about the following:
1- Did Lorraine arrange an appointment with any of the three retailers she sold to?
2- Was their product selection the best choice to target those retailers?
3- Was her pitch an indicator of a good sales ability?
4- Were the other subteam's pitches worse than Lorraine's?
IMO the answer to each of the above questions is NO. Suppose that Ben and his subteam took on the appointments. I can't think of any reason why they couldn't have brought similar sales figures to Lorraine. That is why I said " Lorraine being the 3rd in terms of sales is hardly an indicator of her being a better sales woman than her team members given the circumstances".
I am not saying that Lorraine is worse than them in terms of sales. All I am saying is that any one of the remaining candidates would have delivered (at least) similar sales figures if they went to the pitched to the same 3 retailors.
spin, spin, spin..doesn't change the fact that at Sir Alan's own admission it was close between her and Philip. She loses the next task; she is out the door. Sir Alan is not going to hire someone who is unable to get along with his employees and is constantly in arguments and feuds. It was simply a case of she was not as bbad as Philip. She goes up against anyone now left, she is likely to go.
I actually sympathised with her before this task. But at the end of the day, this is a job interview and interpersoal skills. And I'm 100% sure it does get noticed and compared employees overselling to a small store vs underselling to large stores. If this was a task only about sales and that all that mattered then why was it a close call to her being fired.
How do you know that it was a close-call for Lorraine getting fired?
It didnt seem like there was any real danger to me. All the heat was being put upon Philip and Kate for not making any sales or appointments.
How do you know that it was a close-call for Lorraine getting fired?
It didnt seem like there was any real danger to me. All the heat was being put upon Philip and Kate for not making any sales or appointments.
Kate was bearly touched upon by Sir Alan or the interviewers. And we saw Sir Alan in his little discussion say that Lorraine was winding people up and there was obviously somethig to it that something happened every week. He made a comment about he wasn't sure what was worse. That is how you knew Kate was never going to go. Now her "main feud" has left, it will be interesting to see if the problems continue this week. She is definately highest on the radar at the mo.
It was also discussed at length on the aftershow how close she was to being fired and was likely to be next.
Suppose that Ben and his subteam took on the appointments. I can't think of any reason why they couldn't have brought similar sales figures to Lorraine. That is why I said " Lorraine being the 3rd in terms of sales is hardly an indicator of her being a better sales woman than her team members given the circumstances".
I am not saying that Lorraine is worse than them in terms of sales. All I am saying is that any one of the remaining candidates would have delivered (at least) similar sales figures if they pitched to the same 3 retailors.
It's always difficult working on hypotheticals but I think I know what you mean. For me, Lorraine didn't demonstrate such level of skill that I thought, "wow, no way could anyone else have done that on her team". Whereas say, Mona was pretty incredible and from that evidence, I don't think it would be likely that - say Howard, had he had the same appointments - would have done as well. Or I couldn't say this with confidence.
I thought the order book thing wasn't the best suited for this task anyway, as it did depend a bit on who was doing what pitch etc. So, if X is pitching to those products to the hardware store, for instance, who are never going to buy it, then X is one down, but Y takes the next and gets to scribble it in their pretty orange diary because it was a more suitable vendor.
It would have been more accurate to keep a record like this in a task like the soap one. That just depended completely on sales ability where everyone was in an equal environment.
It's always difficult working on hypotheticals but I think I know what you mean. For me, Lorraine didn't demonstrate such level of skill that I thought, "wow, no way could anyone else have done that on her team". Whereas say, Mona was pretty incredible and from that evidence, I don't think it would be likely that - say Howard, had he had the same appointments - would have done as well. Or I couldn't say this with confidence.
I thought the order book thing wasn't the best suited for this task anyway, as it did depend a bit on who was doing what pitch etc. So, if X is pitching to those products to the hardware store, for instance, who are never going to buy it, then X is one down, but Y takes the next and gets to scribble it in their pretty orange diary because it was a more suitable vendor.
It would have been more accurate to keep a record like this in a task like the soap one. That just depended completely on sales ability where everyone was in an equal environment.
I thought that was unfair too. Like Ben got the pitch, bbut couldnt do it and Lorraine pulled rank to do the pitch taken away the chance of Yasmine to add to her sales. And context also needs to be bought in when you compare store size and sales. Its what made Mona's sales great and Lorraine's not so great when a large retailer nationwide only buys 50.
How do you know that it was a close-call for Lorraine getting fired?
It didnt seem like there was any real danger to me. All the heat was being put upon Philip and Kate for not making any sales or appointments.
Kate got some heat put on her, but she never looked like being fired. Lorraine got heavily criticised over her ability to get on with people.
Personally, I think it was always pretty likely to be Philip that went. He didn't sell, he behaved like an a*se in the boardroom and his achievements on past tasks weren't enough to fall back on.
We see her write £1974 into her order book after one deal. Seeing as she sold over twice as much as Lorraine did, and Tern (who normally watches the showfairly assidiously) came away with impression she sold less than her, I'd say she definitely got a raw deal.
I agree she didn't get a good edit.
I missed her entry into her notebook and because no one had mentioned James' and Howard's very poor sales I assumed that the sales by the rest of Mona's team were evenly split.
Where did I say "getting a pitch = sales"? I said the number of pitches a candidate gets is an important factor that contributes to their sales. The other team had two at least (as far as we saw) and still sold nothing so unless they didn't get any you don't really have a point thereLet's think about the following:
1- Did Lorraine arrange any of the 3 appointments? They weren't the only appointments they had, Lorraine mentioned in the boardroom her and Yasmina got another 5and sold at 4
2- Was her product selection the best choice to target those retailers? The sub-team had the same products it was up to them to arrange to pitch them and they barely managed that
3- Was her pitch an indicator of a good sales ability?Not good sales abiltity but some as opposed to none on the other team
4- Were the other subteam's pitches worse than Lorraine's? You can only assume either the subteam didn't pick the right places to pitch at or that there's were worse. Either way the blame lies with them
IMO the answer to each of the above questions is NO. Suppose that Ben and his subteam took on the appointments.Again pointless conjecture I can't think of any reason why they couldn't have brought similar sales figures to Lorraine. I can't see why they couldn't have sold anything anywhere else but there you go, they didn'tThat is why I said " Lorraine being the 3rd in terms of sales is hardly an indicator of her being a better sales woman than her team members given the circumstances".It's a poor cop-out. Imagine the losing team using excuses like the ones you are. They'd be out on their a**** in no time
This is kinda going round in circles. The long and short of it they didn't sell anything - not less - nothing. None of those are exceptable excuses in business I don't see why they are here.
This is kinda going round in circles. The long and short of it they didn't sell anything - not less - nothing. None of those are exceptable excuses in business I don't see why they are here.
I didn't say there is an execuse for them not selling. I said Lorraine's selling is not an indicator that she is a better sales person. I really don't understand your point. Are you saying that there is no difference between leads SAS arranged and any other retailer?
SAS was annoyed at Mona's team because they didn't choose suitable products to the leads he provided. He compared it to placing a good bet, i.e. it is much easier to sell to the leads because the appointments have been arranged well in advance. Therefore, these retailers are willing to make an instant decision to buy in large quantities if the product suits them.
Unlike selling to the public, the key to selling to retailers is the number of appointments and their quality. It is very difficult to generate a respectable amount of sales if you make an appointment with a retailer 3 to 12 hours in advance and ask them to make an instant decision. It largely depends in the saleability of the product, whether they are willing to buy immediately, and the quality of the pitch. The fact that it is a TV program doesn't help. Some retailers can be time wasters who are looking for publicity when they are not willing to buy. Others may refuse to carry out a deal in front of cameras. Others go through long decision chains in order to issue one sale. The products of Lorraine's team didn't help.
Lorraine's (and Yasmina's) sales to the leads do not indicate a better sales ability. Identifying a potentially good buyer and making an appointment was key in the task and I didn't see Lorraine do any of that. On the other hand, Mona and Debra excelled.
I really don't understand your point. Are you saying that there is no difference between leads SAS arranged and any other retailer?
SAS was annoyed at Mona's team because they didn't choose suitable products to the leads he provided. He compared it to placing a good bet, i.e. it is much easier to sell to the leads because the appointments have been arranged well in advance. Therefore, these retailers are willing to make an instant decision to buy in large quantities if the product suits them.
Unlike selling to the public, the key to selling to retailers is the number of appointments and their quality. It is very difficult to generate a respectable amount of sales if you make an appointment with a retailer 3 to 12 hours in advance and ask them to make an instant decision. It largely depends in the saleability of the product, whether they are willing to buy immediately, and the quality of the pitch. The fact that it is a TV program doesn't help. Some retailers can be time wasters who are looking for publicity when they are not willing to buy. Others may refuse to carry out a deal in front of cameras. Others go through long decision chains in order to issue one sale. The products of Lorraine's team didn't help.
Lorraine's (and Yasmina's) sales to the leads do not indicate a better sales ability. Identifying a potentially good buyer and making an appointment was key in the task and I didn't see Lorraine do any of that. On the other hand, Mona and Debra excelled.
The reason it's going around in circles is that you are spinning it!
You are determined to get across the view that the results were other than they were. And, not surprisingly, there are people who will have none of that.
It was an individual sales task. AS made that extraordinarily clear.
The bottom line is: Lorraine came third and three of the remaining candidates didn't sell anything.
It's something you are just going to have to learn to live with.
The reason it's going around in circles is that you are spinning it!
You are determined to get across the view that the results were other than they were. And, not surprisingly, there are people who will have none of that.
It was an individual sales task. AS made that extraordinarily clear.
The bottom line is: Lorraine came third and three of the remaining candidates didn't sell anything.
It's something you are just going to have to learn to live with.
It was an individual selling task but they were not given equal opportunities. Manchester is not like Liverpool and selling to the leads is different from selling to other retailers as far as I am concerned.
I don't have a problem with Lorraine coming third. It means nothing in this process. Mona came first and she is not going to win .
All I am trying to do is to analyse the task and identify the reasons of success and failure. Selling to the trade is one of my favourite tasks and although it is much simplified in the apprentice, the principles are not that much different in real life.
I don't think I have been going around in circles and I don't think I have been unreasonable at any point. As I said before, I will leave it to the readers of this thread to make up their minds.
He frequently 'feints to the left' to make it sound as if he's going to fire one candidate before saying 'but ...'. It's almost a signature ploy.
Philip was always the likely choice to go with no sales after being an a** in the boardroom, but Sir Alan made a huge point of talking about Lorraine. Bottom line is that Lorraine's inability to command respect from "colleagues" and constants arguments means she will not be hired. I am 100% on this fact. I work in the industry and I know how it goes. To put someone in charge with colleagues sniggering at her and constantly unable to gorge good working relationships is something you just wouldn't do. Interpersonal skills are key in the industry. Lorraine has got off so far because of worse candidates in the boardroom next to her. But now it is whittling down, she will not last more than the next few weeks unless she wins each of her tasks. And thus far she hasn't been someone outperforming each week. Even last week; her sales technique was flimsy and would have been picked up upon by Nick and her management/leadership skills poor.
Bottom line is she won't make the final. She was just fortunate to be up against Philip. Unless some of the others majorly screw up (ie. in task or attitude in the boardroom in reference to Ben and Deborah) or Howard has another quiet week then she will be gone. She won't make the final at any rate, unless she, by miracle wins every task.
Comments
And 50 to a major retailer nationwide is a poxy sale. It increased her figures but was a poor effort. They bought a test figure and that would have been much higher with a better seller. Her pitches were atrocious. You only had to listen to Mona to see the comparison. She sold more sleeping bags than were needed to that tiny store and Lrraine got the same number of sales from a major retailer. Poor in comparison. And it was a lead got by Ben.
And as Sir Alan said; they had an advantage as 2 pitches were set up with major retailers so by pickig something suiting the store they should have guaranteed themselves a sale as large store, if it suits their range would always buy a few to "test".
But yet her sales didn't eve come close to a team who sold only on the second day to small outlets. I'm sorry but her pitch to the major pet store was atrocious. And as Lorraine herself admitted; they didn't pick really great items to sell as they had a hard time getting people to buy into them. Most of what we saw saw retailers very dismissive of the cat boxes. I think the bags were a better buy personally. I still think they should have gone with the ladder for hardware store and the sleeping bag/bag for bike.
None of the team really picked the best products for the retailers already set up. Lorraines actual buy ins from them were not large. How many sales did Lorraine make from her own appointments set up?
Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin.
You can keep trying to spin it that she did badly but you cannot change the fact that she had the third highest sale in a task that AS had specifically said was about individual sales.
Also, if there's any sort of bias for an even ratio of sexes, any of the men could benefit. I'd be surprised if they go into the interview round with 4 girls and 1 boy, so one of the boys might get a boost to even it up. And the interview round is, in my opinion, rather random. I reckon I know Sir Alan pretty well, but I've got no idea which way the interviewers will jump, and the round is based not on what we've seen over the series but on their CVs, and that could be anything. So we might find that any of the apparently strong candidates comes a cropper there, and an outside candidate like Ben could reach the final.
We see her write £1974 into her order book after one deal. Seeing as she sold over twice as much as Lorraine did, and Tern (who normally watches the showfairly assidiously) came away with impression she sold less than her, I'd say she definitely got a raw deal.
That's not to take anything away from Mona. She was clearly the best saleswoman on the day. But generally I prefer an edit which focuses on more than one person for praise when they deserve it. Otherwise it only fuels the "X does nothing/what does Y ACTUALLY DO?" crap.
All the results we draw from the show are built upon a fundamental assumption: We assume the edit of the program is a true reflection of what really happened. Also business is built on assumptions. I don't understand your point really.
I made an assumption and it is a reasonable one: it is built on what we saw and common sense. I leave it to the reader of this thread to validate it.
Like most people in this forum, I do have my favourites but I don't think I twisted any results to defend them. A summary of my post: Lorraine being the 3rd in terms of sales is hardly an indicator of her being a better sales woman than her team members given the circumstances (and her pitch). IMO Mona and Debra did much better - not only did they produce higher figures but they also planned their sales from A to Z unlike Lorraine.
Lorraine did pick better products in terms of suitability to the leads. However, her products were worse in terms of saleability. With the products they chose, it was very difficult to make sales without any leads.
I am glad that you usually find my posts amusing
No it doesn't, I don't think there's anyone here who thinks Debra does nothing. There's is a big £500 gap between what Mona sold and what Debra sold. Debra was good no doubt but Mona was exceptional hence being praised on exceptional performance. How you can describe that as a 'raw deal', goodness knows. All this and yet Kate get's single out for praise as part of a team effort in a task where she hasn't thought of the main concepts. :rolleyes:
What circumstances? They were selling the same things and you talk as if somehow getting a pitch = sales which it doesn't. The sub-team had at least two which they were unable to convert into sales. Lorraine may not be better all round but on thi task she out-performed them. The conjecture is pointless.
spin, spin, spin..doesn't change the fact that at Sir Alan's own admission it was close between her and Philip. She loses the next task; she is out the door. Sir Alan is not going to hire someone who is unable to get along with his employees and is constantly in arguments and feuds. It was simply a case of she was not as bbad as Philip. She goes up against anyone now left, she is likely to go.
I actually sympathised with her before this task. But at the end of the day, this is a job interview and interpersoal skills. And I'm 100% sure it does get noticed and compared employees overselling to a small store vs underselling to large stores. If this was a task only about sales and that all that mattered then why was it a close call to her being fired.
Where did I say "getting a pitch = sales"? I said the number of pitches a candidate gets is an important factor that contributes to their sales. Let's think about the following:
1- Did Lorraine arrange any of the 3 appointments?
2- Was her product selection the best choice to target those retailers?
3- Was her pitch an indicator of a good sales ability?
4- Were the other subteam's pitches worse than Lorraine's?
IMO the answer to each of the above questions is NO. Suppose that Ben and his subteam took on the appointments. I can't think of any reason why they couldn't have brought similar sales figures to Lorraine. That is why I said " Lorraine being the 3rd in terms of sales is hardly an indicator of her being a better sales woman than her team members given the circumstances".
I am not saying that Lorraine is worse than them in terms of sales. All I am saying is that any one of the remaining candidates would have delivered (at least) similar sales figures if they pitched to the same 3 retailors.
Her pitch to the pet retailer was poor.
How do you know that it was a close-call for Lorraine getting fired?
It didnt seem like there was any real danger to me. All the heat was being put upon Philip and Kate for not making any sales or appointments.
Kate was bearly touched upon by Sir Alan or the interviewers. And we saw Sir Alan in his little discussion say that Lorraine was winding people up and there was obviously somethig to it that something happened every week. He made a comment about he wasn't sure what was worse. That is how you knew Kate was never going to go. Now her "main feud" has left, it will be interesting to see if the problems continue this week. She is definately highest on the radar at the mo.
It was also discussed at length on the aftershow how close she was to being fired and was likely to be next.
It's always difficult working on hypotheticals but I think I know what you mean. For me, Lorraine didn't demonstrate such level of skill that I thought, "wow, no way could anyone else have done that on her team". Whereas say, Mona was pretty incredible and from that evidence, I don't think it would be likely that - say Howard, had he had the same appointments - would have done as well. Or I couldn't say this with confidence.
I thought the order book thing wasn't the best suited for this task anyway, as it did depend a bit on who was doing what pitch etc. So, if X is pitching to those products to the hardware store, for instance, who are never going to buy it, then X is one down, but Y takes the next and gets to scribble it in their pretty orange diary because it was a more suitable vendor.
It would have been more accurate to keep a record like this in a task like the soap one. That just depended completely on sales ability where everyone was in an equal environment.
I thought that was unfair too. Like Ben got the pitch, bbut couldnt do it and Lorraine pulled rank to do the pitch taken away the chance of Yasmine to add to her sales. And context also needs to be bought in when you compare store size and sales. Its what made Mona's sales great and Lorraine's not so great when a large retailer nationwide only buys 50.
Kate got some heat put on her, but she never looked like being fired. Lorraine got heavily criticised over her ability to get on with people.
Personally, I think it was always pretty likely to be Philip that went. He didn't sell, he behaved like an a*se in the boardroom and his achievements on past tasks weren't enough to fall back on.
I agree she didn't get a good edit.
I missed her entry into her notebook and because no one had mentioned James' and Howard's very poor sales I assumed that the sales by the rest of Mona's team were evenly split.
I don't know where you got that from.
He frequently 'feints to the left' to make it sound as if he's going to fire one candidate before saying 'but ...'. It's almost a signature ploy.
This is kinda going round in circles. The long and short of it they didn't sell anything - not less - nothing. None of those are exceptable excuses in business I don't see why they are here.
I didn't say there is an execuse for them not selling. I said Lorraine's selling is not an indicator that she is a better sales person. I really don't understand your point. Are you saying that there is no difference between leads SAS arranged and any other retailer?
SAS was annoyed at Mona's team because they didn't choose suitable products to the leads he provided. He compared it to placing a good bet, i.e. it is much easier to sell to the leads because the appointments have been arranged well in advance. Therefore, these retailers are willing to make an instant decision to buy in large quantities if the product suits them.
Unlike selling to the public, the key to selling to retailers is the number of appointments and their quality. It is very difficult to generate a respectable amount of sales if you make an appointment with a retailer 3 to 12 hours in advance and ask them to make an instant decision. It largely depends in the saleability of the product, whether they are willing to buy immediately, and the quality of the pitch. The fact that it is a TV program doesn't help. Some retailers can be time wasters who are looking for publicity when they are not willing to buy. Others may refuse to carry out a deal in front of cameras. Others go through long decision chains in order to issue one sale. The products of Lorraine's team didn't help.
Lorraine's (and Yasmina's) sales to the leads do not indicate a better sales ability. Identifying a potentially good buyer and making an appointment was key in the task and I didn't see Lorraine do any of that. On the other hand, Mona and Debra excelled.
The reason it's going around in circles is that you are spinning it!
You are determined to get across the view that the results were other than they were. And, not surprisingly, there are people who will have none of that.
It was an individual sales task. AS made that extraordinarily clear.
The bottom line is: Lorraine came third and three of the remaining candidates didn't sell anything.
It's something you are just going to have to learn to live with.
It was an individual selling task but they were not given equal opportunities. Manchester is not like Liverpool and selling to the leads is different from selling to other retailers as far as I am concerned.
I don't have a problem with Lorraine coming third. It means nothing in this process. Mona came first and she is not going to win
All I am trying to do is to analyse the task and identify the reasons of success and failure. Selling to the trade is one of my favourite tasks and although it is much simplified in the apprentice, the principles are not that much different in real life.
I don't think I have been going around in circles and I don't think I have been unreasonable at any point. As I said before, I will leave it to the readers of this thread to make up their minds.
Philip was always the likely choice to go with no sales after being an a** in the boardroom, but Sir Alan made a huge point of talking about Lorraine. Bottom line is that Lorraine's inability to command respect from "colleagues" and constants arguments means she will not be hired. I am 100% on this fact. I work in the industry and I know how it goes. To put someone in charge with colleagues sniggering at her and constantly unable to gorge good working relationships is something you just wouldn't do. Interpersonal skills are key in the industry. Lorraine has got off so far because of worse candidates in the boardroom next to her. But now it is whittling down, she will not last more than the next few weeks unless she wins each of her tasks. And thus far she hasn't been someone outperforming each week. Even last week; her sales technique was flimsy and would have been picked up upon by Nick and her management/leadership skills poor.
Bottom line is she won't make the final. She was just fortunate to be up against Philip. Unless some of the others majorly screw up (ie. in task or attitude in the boardroom in reference to Ben and Deborah) or Howard has another quiet week then she will be gone. She won't make the final at any rate, unless she, by miracle wins every task.