|
||||||||
Susan *was* wrong about the task |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,424
|
Quote:
Does this whole debate remind anyone else of Chris's "wonderful" deal last year on the London Bus tour task - where he gave the tourist office a staggeringly good deal and won their contract. It was made out to be a great intuitive move in the Board room ( and basically secured his way to the final) rather than the accident and lucky break that it actually was.
Susan claiming that she was right all along is in the same category. But even so in business a lot of ultimately good business decisions get made without a demonstrably logical thought process - there's a sort sixth sense to it all - and it can seem like good luck. But the real world is often like that. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
|
I think the point is that the pitches laid on by Lordalan as part of a gameshow are highly artificial, and trying to apply real world logic to them is pointless. Regardless of whether it was accidental or on purpose (and the presumption it was accidental is absed on the edit deliberately holding back Chris' thought processes so it could be a SURPRISE in the Boardroom that an odd-sounding deal had worked), Chris Bates' deal was a great deal because it meant that the other team didn't have a dedicated ticket office selling on their behalf, and his team did. So long as the dedicated tourist office sold a decent margin more tickets than two amateurs running round Leciester Square in costume making everyone sign releases every time they talked to them (and it did) it was a good deal profits-wise as well, not that it needed to be, because primarily it was about blocking the other team from having a resource.
The Apprentice isn't about making the most money possible. It's about making more money than the other guys. Normally the teams can't hurt one another, so it's usually irrelevant, but in the case of these really artificial "how low can you go?" auctions, it absolutely is. |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5,415
|
Quote:
OK lets try a different tack. Lets compare Susan to Helen.
Helen specifically stated that she believed the items they were removing had value and they could resell them and that it was worth doing the job for free. She acknowledged this was a risky strategy. So whatever the outcome, you could see her thought process, you could see she knew it was a risky strategy but at least she had a vision and a path to follow. Compare and contrast to Susan who said they should just pay the guy £150 to remove the stuff. No rhyme or reason ..... no 'Well I believe we have £300 worth of goods here.' No ..... well I think the other team may well offer to give him £140 so we should make the offer more lucrative. There was absolutely no rhyme or reason behind her thought process and to praise her, well you should be face palming yourself mate. |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 695
|
Quote:
Jesus.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,694
|
Quote:
Unless the furniture is rare or antique stuff it really isn't worth it, it being worth £50 is a waste of time, it's big and heavy and it will always cost more than that to shift it around. In the real world, not Apprentice Fantasy Land.
But, then, you're describing furniture that the candidates sold for £300 as being worth £50. |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: West London
Posts: 14,776
|
Well they only got £300 because they were helped with a place that would buy it and would buy it straight away!
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 5,982
|
To charge, or not to charge......that confused me to......Susan isn't an Idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 695
|
Exactly. I think some people are too focused on the end result of 300 quid. When actually it could have gone horribly wrong either way.
The point is that Susan just assumed they had to pay him when actually what was required was to weigh up what was there, what it was worth and what price they could offer the guy in order to secure the deal and make a profit. Susan didnt show any of that, she just was happy to blindly pay the guy £150 with no reason stated as to why they should do this, and how much money they could make on resale. Even if Helen had got it wrong, she still would have been right because she verbalised her reasons and stated she was taking a risk. Susan on the other hand was just blindly walking along and just happened to follow the right path. That doesnt make her a genius. So I say again, EVEN if Helen had lost it, she was still the better person because her idea and reasoning was much better. |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 14,957
|
The belief that Zoe and Edna (and Melody) had, that, regardless of what the 'rubbish' was worth they should demand a fee for transport and labour costs, is a flawed one. They were directly bidding against the other team, so the winner woud not only get the contract but also deprive the other team of that contract. Also, to use an anology, what if I said that I had a lump of gold worth £1000 and a bag of cement in the garden that needed clearing, and one guy told me he wanted £100 to clear them out. I'd tell him to eff off. Sometimes, it makes business sense to forego some income (money for removal costs) if that means gaining greater income as a result (sell on value of the removed goods) - something the girls mentioned all failed to understand. Quote:
I like Susan and find her entertaining but I don't know how she has survived so long.
When she was sitting in the car and saying, So I wasn't wrong, to me, she looked really smug and a bit " i told you so". Ironic, as she was wrong - they had just been undercut by the other team. Quote:
OK lets try a different tack. Lets compare Susan to Helen.
Helen specifically stated that she believed the items they were removing had value and they could resell them and that it was worth doing the job for free. She acknowledged this was a risky strategy. So whatever the outcome, you could see her thought process, you could see she knew it was a risky strategy but at least she had a vision and a path to follow. Compare and contrast to Susan who said they should just pay the guy £150 to remove the stuff. No rhyme or reason ..... no 'Well I believe we have £300 worth of goods here.' No ..... well I think the other team may well offer to give him £140 so we should make the offer more lucrative. There was absolutely no rhyme or reason behind her thought process and to praise her, well you should be face palming yourself mate. Susan's biggest problem here was in not having the courage of her convictions. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 695
|
Quote:
The belief that Zoe and Edna (and Melody) had, that, regardless of what the 'rubbish' was worth they should demand a fee for transport and labour costs is a flawed one.
They were directly bidding against the other team, so the winner woud not only get the contract but also deprive the other team of that contract. Also, to use an anology, what if I said that I had a lump of gold worth £1000 and a bag of cement in the garden that needed clearing, and one guy told me he wanted £100 to clear them out. I'd tell him to eff off. Sometimes, it makes business sense to forego some income (money for removal costs) if that means gaining greater income as a result (sell on value of the removed goods) - something the girls mentioned all failed to understand. How does that make her wrong? They were outbid because Zoe demanded a fee. It was Susan that argued against doing that. Really? So why do you think she was in favour of giving them money to remove the 'rubbish' if she didn't think there was profit to be made elsewhere? I would guess she didn't mention her reasoning because it was so evident. Susan's biggest problem here was in not having the courage of her convictions. I can clearly explain this. When Zoe said to her, why should we pay the guy Susan just went 'Oh I thought thats what we were doing.' Now if she had been clear in her mind that the reason they should pay him is that he has more valuable stuff here so its worth them paying him. But she didn't. And dont make the wild assumption that the only reason she didnt speak up was because she was intimidated. The reason she didnt speak up was because she herself didnt have a clue as to whether they should be giving the guy money or taking money from the guy. ALSO I hasten to add, if they had followed Susan's plan they would have given the guy £150 .... the other team did it for free, so they would have been £150 down before they even started. My end point being, that Susan may not have verbalised her thoughts, not because she was intimidated, but because actaully she didn't even know in her own mind what was going on. |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4
|
Quote:
...ALSO I hasten to add, if they had followed Susan's plan they would have given the guy £150 .... the other team did it for free, so they would have been £150 down before they even started...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,308
|
But if Susan's team had bought the contract, I doubt they would have bothered to find the copper cylinders, which were a huge profit. From the sound of it the metal in the contract wasn't that great having a mix of steel, irons and lead. Once Helen offered free of charge there was no way of beating that contract wise and still be in with a shot.
What both groups should have done was charge a low amount, say £40, that would compensate slightly for the waste crap they would have to pay to get rid of. Helen's strategy was extremely risky, and although I like her, she was lucky to win when the other group had managed to find the copper cylinders - which were a gold mine. |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,694
|
Quote:
Well they only got £300 because they were helped with a place that would buy it and would buy it straight away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 14,957
|
Quote:
I can clearly explain this. When Zoe said to her, why should we pay the guy Susan just went 'Oh I thought thats what we were doing.'
Now if she had been clear in her mind that the reason they should pay him is that he has more valuable stuff here so its worth them paying him. But she didn't. And dont make the wild assumption that the only reason she didnt speak up was because she was intimidated. The reason she didnt speak up was because she herself didnt have a clue as to whether they should be giving the guy money or taking money from the guy. ALSO I hasten to add, if they had followed Susan's plan they would have given the guy £150 .... the other team did it for free, so they would have been £150 down before they even started. My end point being, that Susan may not have verbalised her thoughts, not because she was intimidated, but because actaully she didn't even know in her own mind what was going on. ![]() I gave my guess as to why she never (as far as we're aware) gave her reasoning in the post you quoted, and nowhere do I mention intimidation. Quote:
Really? So why do you think she was in favour of giving them money to remove the 'rubbish' if she didn't think there was profit to be made elsewhere? I would guess she didn't mention her reasoning because it was so evident.
Is it so hard to accept, as a possibility, that Susan thought giving them money was a good idea because they would secure the contract, deprive the other side of that contract, and sell the 'rubbish' on for a tidy sum?Also, I never said that offering £150 was the right course to take (although it would have deprived the other side of the contract, and who knows what from there?), but her thinking (that they need to look beyond the obvious of charging for the service, as shown earlier when she suggested offering it for free) was sound. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 14,957
|
Quote:
But if Susan's team had bought the contract, I doubt they would have bothered to find the copper cylinders, which were a huge profit. From the sound of it the metal in the contract wasn't that great having a mix of steel, irons and lead. Once Helen offered free of charge there was no way of beating that contract wise and still be in with a shot.
What both groups should have done was charge a low amount, say £40, that would compensate slightly for the waste crap they would have to pay to get rid of. Helen's strategy was extremely risky, and although I like her, she was lucky to win when the other group had managed to find the copper cylinders - which were a gold mine. |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 2,455
|
The way it came across in the discussion was that Susan thought they were talking about paying the guy rather than charging him.
Had she then gone on to explain that her misunderstanding was because she realised they could make X amount flogging the desks on, so was it worth offering to pay for them, I would have been impressed. However whatever was in her mind, she showed - as she has done before - that she can't communicate her ideas to others when under pressure so whether or not she had a good idea is a moot point. I think within the discussion they were having it was quite reasonable for Zoe to say to Edna 'Have I misunderstood this? We are talking about charging not paying aren't we?' Admittedly she said it in such a way as to suggest Susan was talking rubbish but it was open to Susan at that point to say 'I know that's what we thought we were doing, but....' and she didn't. One thing I'm getting very tired of with Susan is this 'They're mean to me because I'm young' refrain she falls back on. Zoe said in the car back to the house she would talk to anyone in exactly the same way and I believe her. I think most of the candidates on Junior Apprentice were more articulate and clear thinking than Susan. I don't see Shugs going into business with someone who thinks she's always right but lacks the ability to get other people on board with her ideas, or someone who allows people to sideline her so easily. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,843
|
The rules of the task weren't made very clear. It wasn't made clear you have to charge for collection. I think you can give Susan the benefit of the doubt because the rules weren't clear. Did they have to pay money to the customer, did the customer have to pay money to the team, or did team have to offer its services for free? Seemed a bit unclear to me. Quote:
As LS said, if they just offered 50 quid they would have got the deal.
I thought Sugar meant the guy should pay them 50 quid.Wow, talk about confusing! ![]() Sugar didn't even say "the team that makes the least money will lose and one of you will get fired." I think that's the first time in the show's history that bit of dialogue was edited out. Don't know why it was removed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 28,896
|
Quote:
It was all very confusing to me. Zoe wanted to charge the first lot to take the rubbish away Susan said we should have done it for free. Was there any mention of Susan wanting to pay for the removals which I missed?
I have no idea what Nick sees in this girl. She's all over the place. |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,843
|
I didn't understand any of it. You pay the customer, he pays you, you do if for free?
Totally confusing! No-wonder Zoe and Susan were bit clueless. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 695
|
The concept is simple. You are there to remove all the rubbish. Now normally you might charge say £100 to do the job. But if you notice among the rubble an original Monet ..... you might offer to do it for nothing as you know you will make it back and more from the sale of the painting. You go to the next job and its the same amount of rubbish but not Monet painting, just rubble, and you will charge him £100 to remove it even though you did the last job for free.
Easy. |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 28,896
|
Quote:
I didn't understand any of it. You pay the customer, he pays you, you do if for free?
Totally confusing! No-wonder Zoe and Susan were bit clueless. |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 14,957
|
Quote:
The concept is simple. You are there to remove all the rubbish. Now normally you might charge say £100 to do the job. But if you notice among the rubble an original Monet ..... you might offer to do it for nothing as you know you will make it back and more from the sale of the painting. You go to the next job and its the same amount of rubbish but not Monet painting, just rubble, and you will charge him £100 to remove it even though you did the last job for free.
Easy. Not a difficult concept at all, but one that Zoe failed to grasp when accusing Susan of trying to 'sabotage' the task when suggesting the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: ¥
Posts: 1,720
|
Quote:
Exactly, and I made a similar comparison in my first post on here. Indeed, if someone offers to remove the rubble that includes a Monet for nothing, some might say it'd be worth undercutting them by offering to pay to remove it.
Not a difficult concept at all, but one that Zoe failed to grasp when accusing Susan of trying to 'sabotage' the task when suggesting the same thing. Go to a site and buy rubbish and then sell it. The clearing aspect of the task escaped her. She saw it like going to an auction and buying stuff to sell on ebay. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,843
|
Quote:
"The concept is simple. You are there to remove all the rubbish. Now normally you might charge say £100 to do the job. But if you notice among the rubble an original Monet ..... you might offer to do it for nothing as you know you will make it back and more from the sale of the painting. You go to the next job and its the same amount of rubbish but not Monet painting, just rubble, and you will charge him £100 to remove it even though you did the last job for free. I'm not sure rubbish collectors would make any money if they regularly offered their services for free. As mentioned by another poster, there are fuel costs. The job requires a lot of travel and petrol is very expensive. There's also salaries for the employees. Perhaps in the 'real world' Helen wouldn't be able to afford to offer her services for free.
Easy." |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 2,455
|
Quote:
Not a difficult concept at all, but one that Zoe failed to grasp when accusing Susan of trying to 'sabotage' the task when suggesting the same thing.
Either she's completely unable to explain herself or she's working a tactic of saying just enough in a confusing enough manner to be able to cover herself whatever the outcome. Eg if they had actually paid for the furniture, on what she said in that discussion she could equally have claimed it as her idea if LS thought it was a good one or said that she had got mixed up about the process because of her extreme youth and that Zoe should have known better than to do what she seemed to be saying. Just as in the cosmetics task she confidently said she could sell all the fake tan but when she didn't it suddenly became unfair to criticise her for that assertion because it was only her idea and others should have overridden her if it wasn't a good idea. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:22.






