DS Forums

 
 

The Advisors


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31-10-2015, 09:14
Stormwave UK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 4,912

One thing I've noticed, particularly this year, is how important Nick and Margaret were.

They were often hard, but sensible and most importantly nice and helpful. I find Karen and Claude just kind of bitter and nasty, Claude less than Karen. The wit and humour seems to be gone.

Anyone else feel like this?
Stormwave UK is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 31-10-2015, 09:59
rubberduck3y6
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,101
Karren does seem to criticise a lot, which is what I guess she's there for, while Claude's become more lapdog than bulldog!

Bring back Nick and Margaret!
rubberduck3y6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2015, 12:35
ShotDownInFlame
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,863
I do feel as though Karen and Claude are treating the whole thing a bit too seriously (I suppose that's what they're there to do though) and as above, Claude is playing a yes man to Lord Sugar. Unfortunately though I just can't imagine them getting 2 people like Nick and Margaret again, they were essentially like lightning in a bottle.
ShotDownInFlame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2015, 13:20
DiamondDoll
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 14,001
Just proves that Nick and Margaret really were indispensable.
DiamondDoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2015, 18:40
Cherrybomber
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On the ground
Posts: 3,686
Just proves that Nick and Margaret really were indispensable.
Bingo!

If you look at the first 4 or 5 series you will see very clearly that Nick and Margaret were a key part of the charm of the programme, offering a challenge to SA, some humour and clarifying muddles with a sardonic smile and a beautifully raised eyebrow.
Claude and Karen are simply pale replacements, lacking any appeal.
This show is increasingly dreary
Cherrybomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2015, 04:21
firefly_irl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,746
Nick and Margaret always added humour and lightness even when critiquing, Karen constantly has a face like a smacked arse and Claude is just underwhelming.
firefly_irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2015, 10:58
Toggler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,219
For me Karen and Claude lack the gravitas and stance of Nick and Margaret, and the humour. These were two highly experienced professionals and really brought insight and some amusement to the process. This team is not particularity energetic and motivating.
Toggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2015, 20:37
Ray_Burn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 168
I never liked Nick much, but Margaret was fantastic. I remember she and Kristina in series 3 even seemed to get on well.

Karren just sneers 'Shambles,' 'Disgrace,' and 'Wimmin in business are cringing at this.'

Claude hasn't done anything significant yet.
Ray_Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2015, 21:51
Cats_Eyes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,546
I never liked Nick much, but Margaret was fantastic. I remember she and Kristina in series 3 even seemed to get on well.

Karren just sneers 'Shambles,' 'Disgrace,' and 'Wimmin in business are cringing at this.'

Claude hasn't done anything significant yet.
I liked both Nick and Margaret but Karren Brady has acheived far more in her life and by her standards has very right to say "shambles; disgrace ; cringing etc "

Because it is.
Cats_Eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2015, 07:38
Ray_Burn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 168
I liked both Nick and Margaret but Karren Brady has acheived far more in her life and by her standards has very right to say "shambles; disgrace ; cringing etc "

Because it is.
Sure, and in that case, a more insightful critique than that would be interesting. I don't need Karren Brady to tell me that since t-shirts cost more than balloons, selling more t-shirts would make more money.
Ray_Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2015, 07:45
lammtarra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
Sure, and in that case, a more insightful critique than that would be interesting. I don't need Karren Brady to tell me that since t-shirts cost more than balloons, selling more t-shirts would make more money.
That alone puts you one step ahead of the sub-team that concentrated on balloons, so it might not have been quite as obvious to all viewers until Karren said so. A question not explored on You're Fired is whether the balloons were attracting the shirt customers: in other words, should the team have maintained the mix of products rather than shutting down balloons?
lammtarra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2015, 08:01
Ray_Burn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 168
A question not explored on You're Fired is whether the balloons were attracting the shirt customers: in other words, should the team have maintained the mix of products rather than shutting down balloons?
Another crucial fact that Karren didn't point out is that things that cost less are cheaper, so people are more likely to buy cheaper things than more expensive things, as then they have more money left over.

I think they made a killing on the balloons and probably couldn't have sold enough t-shirts to match balloon sales. However, Karren couldn't prove this so she snarked about their focus on balloons, because she doesn't like to acknowledge good business decisions.
Ray_Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2015, 10:09
CaroUK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,168
At those sort of shows, the majority of buyers are looking for the cheap portable items that they can buy and take away with them on the day.

This is particularly true if they are a family with kids where they usually buy all the kids the same thing to maintain the peace. The walking balloons were an excellent choice for that market - the family with 2 or 3 kids would happily buy them all a balloon at a fiver each, but would balk at Tshirts all round at £12 (or was it £15) each.

The balloon team were into a winner there - choosing something cheap and family friendly - lovely though the Tshirts were, they were just too expensive at £25 a throw for the adult ones.

It's all very well for Karren to sneer at the choice, but I doubt that the shirts would have sold any better with another item - and as they sold loads of the balloons - in fact that was what probably ensured the win for them - they made the right decision!
CaroUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2015, 10:42
The Rhydler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
Bingo!

If you look at the first 4 or 5 series you will see very clearly that Nick and Margaret were a key part of the charm of the programme, offering a challenge to SA, some humour and clarifying muddles with a sardonic smile and a beautifully raised eyebrow.
Claude and Karen are simply pale replacements, lacking any appeal.
This show is increasingly dreary
Nick and especially Margaret brought class to this once great show. Was never the same after she went.
The Rhydler is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49.