Or did he and I missed it?

If he didn't ask her about how she lied to Tom about what product got the most positive feedback from the public then why didn't he? Was it some kind of pre-arranged agreement not to bring it up?!

Adrian would have brought it up for sure!

I have no idea how these programmes are organised, but as Wax was sticking the boot in to Melody, maybe the production crew decided to play that down?.

After all, she got a grilling as it was, so they may have decided to go soft on that, as too much would have looked like real bullying?.

I made a thread about the same thing too.

And the way she spent the day making use of her ability to speak french to organise a bunch of interviews and then flat-out refused to share any of them.

TBH, I suspect the selfishness she demonstrated there was one of the main things that got her kicked out.

Good.

I noticed on another thread that FM Monkseal feels the edit is suspect on the Metro sequence. Even if the edit is a true reflection, the time to bring it up was in the boardroom, not on You're Fired six months later.

Lord Alun was quite happy with her performance and keeping her appointments. I expect Melody would argue she & Leon got sales from her appointments, whilst Tom & Natasha failed quite spectacularly - if she'd given them half the appointments they could easily have lost by even more.

Well Karren obviously didnt because she brought it up in the boardroom in the last episode.

Also how is it remotely fair? Melody got at least a half day headstart to contact all the best retailers while the other two were stuck in London trying to choose products to flog.

No product to flog, Melody has nothing to show when she gets there.

Tom is a fool. I would have told her, keep your interviews, but you're not getting any products to show them ...... then see how far she got.

Fortunately, Tom is a grown up and has a modicum of intelligence.

Melody did not lie to Tom.

3 out of 3 respondents inside the metro station said they preferred to use the metro to the car .

Melody withheld the whole truth, editing info in such a way that the listener was induced into drawing the inference Melody preferred. With the two sides of any argument always filtered to show only Melody's side, in the end not only team colleagues but Melody herself became captives of one-sided propaganda.

Probably because, the chances are, she didn't actually lie. The editing in that scene is pretty choppy and for all we know, her "lie" may have actually been the truth.

I'm not too sure how you came to that conclusion if I'm honest. I only saw 4 people asked questions by Melody and Leon, fed back in accordance to "Market research". Which of those people said that the car seat would not be a good product for the mass market? Which of those who picked Metro via a different question said that it would be because they don't use cars very much? Out of the 4 people, who said it was "a better idea" to have the teapot? From the information she had, she lied.

She came out with some blaarge in the end, but there was nothing to it apart from what she said. I really can understand where you're coming from, because she dressed up what she was saying. Like thick salad cream that you can't see through, but there's only so far that you can stretch information before it becomes an outright lie... as per the bold.

Melody conveyed the impression the persons she polled to have little enthusiasm for buying the car seat because they claimed little enthusiasm to drive in Paris. That much was part of the VT evidence.

These persons did not say they would buy a teapot before a car seat. Melody did not ask that question and did not claim such an answer provided by the focus group. Melody drew inferences, and also drew inferences after meeting the biscuits focus group, her own inferences.

If some posters were to appear dense hairsplitters, then to infer they are dumb would be something best left to to Melody -- who has gone. End of story. No more. What a relief.

When did Melody lie? I watched the France task- not once did Melody lie. Where are you getting this daft idea from?

At best she manipulated the truth. She'd decided she didn't like the car seat before she got to France. She was on the train the first time she dismissed it. We only saw 3 people being asked, in the metro center. Perhaps the editing didn't favour her but she certainly didn't give Tom the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I've driven in Paris, trust me, there are a lot of people in Paris who drive, mainly badly on my experience.

She didn't come up with more info to suggest that what was seen was unrepresentative of the feedback. she misled Leon in her 'interpretation' of what was said too.
something like "tres jolie!" became - "she hated it"

Tom should have 'manned up' and taken control. I think he should have thanked her for her appointments and sent her back to London if she was not going to be part of the team.

We didn't see even remotely the entire conversation she had with those four people, and we don't know how many other people she spoke to. All we know is that one person preferred the car-seat to the teapot light, two people thought the car-seat was a good idea, and that two people thought that more people in Paris used the Metro than drove.

That's it. That's all we know. It's not enough to conclude, factually, that Melody is lying about anything. The closest you can get is the choppily edited bit where she tells Leon that a woman said something was an ok idea, coming after a clip when a woman tells her the car seat is a good idea. This isn't a closed arena, like the biscuit focus-group, where we're shown people being told an idea then voting on it.

We can conclude that the edit wants us to believe that Melody is bending the truth, and normally I'm happy to go along with when the edit builds things from whole cloth (like when they cut in a load of random close-up faces of Susan looking grumpy and storming off/going for a piss whenever she spoke with Natasha this week) because they can come up with decent supplementary evidence (like both Natasha and Susan talking about how irritating they found the other this week) from elsewhere to back it up. But they've come up with nothing for this. Nobody's even mentioned it, and it was a fairly major plot point.

Don't get me wrong - Melody's market research was bad. It was obviously bad enough that Tom doesn't raise it as part of his rationale for his decisions, and he says it was poor later. In doing it, Melody completely ignored what she was supposed to be doing - checking out La Redoute. The venue was inappropriate, about as inappropriate as trying to flog £25 watches in a Poundshop. I just find definitive statements that she lied to not be based on an awful lot.

She may not have lied, but she certainly didn't represent what she had been told in a particularly honest manner. She said in the boardroom that the market research she was basing her recommendation not to stock the car seat on was negative feedback from 4 people. So, just from what we see on camera, we know that the most negative the market research could have been is 4 unseen people saying they detested the car seat, 2 people saying they thought it was a good idea, and one person saying they preferred it to the teapot light.

That means that, at worst, the market research would have been 57% negative to 43% positive. That's hardly the scenario Melody was passing on back to Tom and Leon. I would think that with such a small sample size (or a large sample size in which the majority of people come out as neither negative nor positive) the best you could say is that the results are inconclusive, or perhaps that people showed no preference for one over the other.

I agree that you have to go on the evidence, rather than assuming about things that we haven't actually seen, but if I were to guess at what the truth of the situation was, I would guess that Melody said "4 people" not because she actually got negative feedback from 4 people, but because she talked to 4 people. I'm not someone who necessarily thinks that the edited programme accurately reflects reality, but in this case I'd be prepared to believe that the picture painted is fairly accurate.

It is, of course, also worth pointing out that Melody thought her 4 negative votes to be significant enough to not stock the product, whereas a week or two later she dismissed negative feedback from 9 or 10 people in a focus group as not being a large enough sample size from which to draw any conclusions. Perhaps she wasn't lying, strictly speaking, but I think that there is enough evidence to safely conclude that she was being dishonest.

I know I'm about to be accused of splitting hairs into infinity and beyond (and having too much time on my hands) but what she actually says about four people is :

"Yes, lots of traffic in Paris, but what the market research told us, and that I can't argue with, people said that in Paris, people use public transport, about four different people said that, didn't they? (*turns to Leon*)"

It's "about four", not an exact number, and it's not all the people who gave negative feedback about the car-seat. It's just on the matter that she's being challenged over at that moment - whether people in Paris drive or use the Metro. That's the only time she mentions 4 people.

I agree that Melody's market research is dodgy on a number of levels. The amount of effort she's putting into it is disproportionate to what's required, she's doing it instead of something she was asked to do, the questions were tilted to give her idea a favourable pitch (but if we excluded market research on those grounds then there'd be almost none left), it ends up being useless, and the ferocity with which she cites it later suggests it was possibly more of a card for her to play later than an actual thing she was doing for a purpose. Her behaviour on the biscuit task is a whole other issue (the SAME focus group of people goes from important when it backs her idea to unimportant when it doesn't. THE SAME GROUP!) and doesn't speak well of her either.

I just think nothing shown, especially on a further watch, and especially given the absence of any follow-up, was strong proof she was lying. I mean, I'd like her to be asked, because people have got it into their heads that it's definitive and are judging her very harshly for it.

Fair enough. I don't think that any point you've made changes what I think is the most salient point I made - that even if she's not lying, she's certainly not being honest.

I don't care about that.

I wanted him to ask what school she went to that had Al Gore, The Dalai Lama & Desmond Tutu as teachers.

You're Fired is supposed to be lighthearted. Ruby Wax didn't get that memo though. If you want to see people public humiliated even more watch Big Brother.