|
||||||||
Tom didn't make the wrong decision but he didn't try to sell the paintings!! |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,085
|
Tom didn't make the wrong decision. It was that he didn't try to sell the paintings!!
Based on yesterday task Tom was lucky not to be fired. Not because he made the wrong decision going with James Jessop but on his lack lustre prefermance 'trying' to sell the paintings. He made a gamble but instead of following through with it...he just decided that he would only try to sell the one artist he liked and made no effort to sell the other paintings.
Why wasn't this mentioned once in the board room rather than just concentrating on his decision to go with the artist. Just one sale would have meant a victory. Yes they were expensive. However James Jessops' art was amazing. I would buy one if only I had the money. There were people interested in buying the paintings. But Tom actually tried to talk them out buying saying things like the painting are too expensive and too big for the wall. Even when a man was interested in buying a piece he pointed him over to the other side of the gallery where much cheaper pieces by another artist were. It was as if he decided that he didn't wouldn't buy the paintings so nobody else should buy one! Also his choice of art for Renault wasn't very good either. He choice the least suitable piece by Copyright. He was lucky to get the sale and was probably because his initial meeting with them was good. On this task yes Laura was a deadweight but they lost because Tom was a greater deadweight and led his team in the wrong direction. He spent too much time trying to impress with his knowledge of graffiti and his good taste but never had any passion for the task. Fair play to Adam though he actually did very well with his naive take and threw himself into the task |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Not sure what you mean. Tom sold over £1,200 of Copyright's paintings (separate to corporate sales to Renault) - this was mentioned in the boardroom. Adam and Jade did sell more, but Laura sold barely half as much, and it appeared that Tom was the only one attempting to sell James Jessop's work.
Surely Tom must have got something right with Renault, given that he sold £5,000 worth of art to them? That's a lot more than one piece. |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,085
|
I mean that he didn't sell any of Jessops painted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,035
|
Tom should have pushed for sales on the big ones, would have won him the task and was the strategy I would have gone with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
I mean that he didn't sell any of Jessops painted.
If he had, he'd have walked the task. But I like the way he hedged his bets and still sold £1,200 of Copyright's work. He didn't put all his eggs in one basket. Absolutely no way Tom should have been fired. He made decisions that didn't work on this task, but by this stage it's never about one task - and he has been strong on most other tasks. Besides, it's not even about task performance - I'm betting he has a better business plan than pretty much everyone else. We've seen he's a clear strategic thinker, so I would expect his plan to reflect that quality of thinking. |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,085
|
Quote:
He was clearly trying, but as was said on the programme and YF, it's tough to sell a piece that expensive in a one-night show. And it's not as if you can try to sell a piece that expensive to everyone.
Quote:
Absolutely no way Tom should have been fired. He made decisions that didn't work on this task, but by this stage it's never about one task - and he has been strong on most other tasks. Besides, it's not even about task performance - I'm betting he has a better business plan than pretty much everyone else. We've seen he's a clear strategic thinker, so I would expect his plan to reflect that quality of thinking.
I agree if it went on overall performance Tom shouldn't go because he is a strong candidate. But on this task alone he was very lucky to stay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
|
I disagree. Massively.
Tom is the best candidate in the show based on the 8 shows so far, last night he made his only error in not securing 'Pure Evil's' work, even though at the time, you couldn't have foreseen how popular Pure Evil was going to be. Tom perhaps droned on a little too much about his knowledge of street art, but I don't see that as a negative, he obviously has a passion for the subject, while Gab - who can enthuse with a smile on her face with the best of them - knows zero about the actual street art 'industry'. I beleive Tom would have sold more of Pure Evil's work than Gab did. So after this setback, he went with Jessop, and he conceded it was a risk, he was aware of it and this is a good thing, so many of the 'risks' taken by candidates aren't actually risks at all, its just incompetence, Tom knows he must take this risk to counter-balance the money the other team will make on Pure Evil. Just one Jessop sale and they've won - and he was so close to selling one too. Sugar recognised that he took a brave risk that was worth taking despite it not coming off. Tom's consistency in the whole series gave him one boardrooms grace and he was never getting fired. Laura has been pretty tepid all season and it was her time to go. I hope Tom goes all the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
I disagree. Massively.
Tom is the best candidate in the show based on the 8 shows so far, last night he made his only error in not securing 'Pure Evil's' work, even though at the time, you couldn't have foreseen how popular Pure Evil was going to be. Tom perhaps droned on a little too much about his knowledge of street art, but I don't see that as a negative, he obviously has a passion for the subject, while Gab - who can enthuse with a smile on her face with the best of them - knows zero about the actual street art 'industry'. I beleive Tom would have sold more of Pure Evil's work than Gab did. So after this setback, he went with Jessop, and he conceded it was a risk, he was aware of it and this is a good thing, so many of the 'risks' taken by candidates aren't actually risks at all, its just incompetence, Tom knows he must take this risk to counter-balance the money the other team will make on Pure Evil. Just one Jessop sale and they've won - and he was so close to selling one too. Sugar recognised that he took a brave risk that was worth taking despite it not coming off. Tom's consistency in the whole series gave him one boardrooms grace and he was never getting fired. Laura has been pretty tepid all season and it was her time to go. I hope Tom goes all the way. |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
|
Quote:
Tom is the best candidate in the show based on the 8 shows so far, last night he made his only error in not securing 'Pure Evil's' work, even though at the time, you couldn't have foreseen how popular Pure Evil was going to be. Tom perhaps droned on a little too much about his knowledge of street art, but I don't see that as a negative...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
|
Yes, but its just that particular artist that didnt care for Tom's 'droning'. Probably annoyed that Tom knew more than he did.
I would be delighted, DELIGHTED if someone who was interested in my work had a solid knowledge of the subject matter, that matters more to me than insincere platitudes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
He's just not convincing. This is the second week, in a row he's been in a role that required him to get the strategy right and he's got it wrong - he had pricing last week and let Jade get it wrong. This week he went for the wrong logic on his artist choice - its OK to gamble but not when you repeatedly get the call wrong.He's unlucky even if you think its largely luck. His big virtue is an ability to spin without looking like Stephen, Adam and Ricky - but he's now shown that he's just as capable of putting people off as pulling them in.
Having said that there's only Nick there who is more convincing. Three or four of the people who have gone looked more capable and reliable than anyone else left. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Titan Uranus
Posts: 31,964
|
Agree that he has a lack of connection with customers. He just droned on, and was more concerned about looking clever than building a rapport with people.
My sister, who's in sales, was saying how he kept missing opportunities that were there for the taking. That Alvin guy said that Tom just says a sentence and then finishes it, as a positive thing. But it also means he has poor conversational skills in socialized environments. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
|
Perhaps he isnt the most scintillating conversationalist, but I think from a business perspective he is the tops.
And Nick likes him, he didnt enjoy having to give a negative on him, but thats his job. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 76
|
Quote:
Yes, but its just that particular artist that didnt care for Tom's 'droning'. Probably annoyed that Tom knew more than he did.
I would be delighted, DELIGHTED if someone who was interested in my work had a solid knowledge of the subject matter, that matters more to me than insincere platitudes. So there's nothing against Tom's approach to his pitch per se. What appears from what we've seen of it though (and let's remember we haven't seen the whole thing, so it's hard to judge for sure), is that he started talking about the scene before being able to connect with the artist and failed to recognize the signs that he wasn't engaging with him, and no matter how knowledgeable you are, if you fail to do that, you just won't convince them. It's up to you to be able to read the signs and change tactics if needs be, and move to another approach. Based on his reaction, my guess is that he was convinced this was the right tactic and never considered that maybe it was not what the artist wanted to hear |
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
|
Isn't it more likely that an artist will do anything and work with anyone to get his work exposed? If Gab hadn't have gone for him then he'd have had to have gone with Tom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 14,737
|
James Jessops paintings were absolutely dire. Ripped off from 50's B Movies and painted really badly. I'm not surprised that no one wanted them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
No he really didn't try to sell those paintings. Did you see him.
Quote:
This week he went for the wrong logic on his artist choice - its OK to gamble but not when you repeatedly get the call wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
I agree. I noticed the same things you did. I was surprise by his approach.
And hence I disagree. Partly on general principles. We've seen time after time on this show that taking risks pays off. I'm pleased that Lord Sugar didn't punish him for it on this occasion. In addition, I don't think it was the wrong choice. They could have sold some of those big paintings, had they been better at selling. There were visitors who liked them, and had the space and the money to buy them, and just needed a good closer to push them over the edge. With Tom you also have the rambling on about a subject he knows a little about to someone who knows a lot about it - that shows overconfidence and a lack of real understanding and appreciation of the subject. Waffling on about other artists showed a lack of tact, and the failure to get that artist demonstrated his problems dealing with people.They all look more dubious failings than those that have sent some people home so far. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
|
Quote:
With Tom you also have the rambling on about a subject he knows a little about to someone who knows a lot about it - that shows overconfidence and a lack of real understanding and appreciation of the subject. Waffling on about other artists showed a lack of tact, and the failure to get that artist demonstrated his problems dealing with people.They all look more dubious failings than those that have sent some people home so far.
There's certainly room for improvement in the way he needs to talk to people, but you couldnt accuse him of not appreciating the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
Having worked in a fairly similar environment, frankly, it all comes down to the person you're talking to. From my experience, the more famous an artist becomes, the more likely flattery will work, although that's hardly a universal rule.
So there's nothing against Tom's approach to his pitch per se. What appears from what we've seen of it though (and let's remember we haven't seen the whole thing, so it's hard to judge for sure), is that he started talking about the scene before being able to connect with the artist and failed to recognize the signs that he wasn't engaging with him, and no matter how knowledgeable you are, if you fail to do that, you just won't convince them. It's up to you to be able to read the signs and change tactics if needs be, and move to another approach. Based on his reaction, my guess is that he was convinced this was the right tactic and never considered that maybe it was not what the artist wanted to hear |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,085
|
Quote:
I agree. I noticed the same things you did. I was surprise by his approach.
I think it is interesting that Tom's main business in the wine business. His methods of name dropping and impressing clients with his knowledge probably work well in investment wine but they didn't transfer to the art world in this task. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
There's certainly room for improvement in the way he needs to talk to people, but you couldnt accuse him of not appreciating the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 76
|
Quote:
It was the equivalent of trying to sell to Tesco and going in and telling them how much he liked random items in Waitrose and M and S's new foodlines. It was standard poor student waffle - talking about something vaguely relevant rather than actually dealing with the question asked/subject at hand. He compounded it by being confident of his own expertise and success, and being totally unable to read the effect he was creating.
)However, the Tesco/ Waitrose analogy hardly stands. Here you're talking about companies in competition which fight each other for market shares. Most artists don't see themselves in competition with each others (although I am sure a few do, but from my experience they're a minority). So showing your knowledge isn't necessarily the wrong tactic, although how you show it might be, which is, I think, what went wrong there |
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
I agree with the last part (he just wasn't able to read the person in front of him, possibly because he was too busy trying hard to impress
)However, the Tesco/ Waitrose analogy hardly stands. Here you're talking about companies in competition which fight each other for market shares. Most artists don't see themselves in competition with each others (although I am sure a few do, but from my experience they're a minority). So showing your knowledge isn't necessarily the wrong tactic, although how you show it might be, which is, I think, what went wrong there |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pembrokeshire.
Posts: 40,686
|
Quote:
He's just not convincing. This is the second week, in a row he's been in a role that required him to get the strategy right and he's got it wrong - he had pricing last week and let Jade get it wrong. This week he went for the wrong logic on his artist choice - its OK to gamble but not when you repeatedly get the call wrong.He's unlucky even if you think its largely luck. His big virtue is an ability to spin without looking like Stephen, Adam and Ricky - but he's now shown that he's just as capable of putting people off as pulling them in.
Having said that there's only Nick there who is more convincing. Three or four of the people who have gone looked more capable and reliable than anyone else left. ![]() Let Jade get it wrong ? the pricing of the suntan lotion was way out compared to the other team, hardly Toms fault - the females should have had more idea than him.Tom saved Jade in last weeks task by taking over the pricing. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:21.




)