Originally Posted by The Rhydler:
“#she had to put up with a lot of nasty snide behaviour from Lee and Alex tonight.”
Snide remarks? You mean treating someone who has the attitude of a spoilt child in the only way that they will understand.
Originally Posted by InigoMontoya:
“Can you refresh my memory on this?
What I recall is seeing her go on and on about the box after it was too late to do anything about it. Do you have any insight into what the point of doing that was because I'm coming up short in working out how that was helping the team.”
I couldn't agree more.
Originally Posted by I love Ellie:
“Give her one thing.
She looked fantastic in that short sparkly dress!”
She did indeed.
She is a pretty girl. She's just a little bit eccentric in her dress sense but there's nothing wrong with that. It makes her different.
Originally Posted by funkycub:
“I think (by the previews) things go tits up for the Alex / Lee / Lucinda team next week. It doesn't look good.”
The previews only hinted that things were getting to Lucinda.
Could she be the candidate that walks out?
Originally Posted by beamsley:
“I think she's got a big too big for her boots and showed herself up a bit last night. Having said that - someone had to step in coz Alex couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag.”
Alex did a good job last night. It was Lucinda's "stepping in" that bu$$ered up Lee's presentation.
Apart from that, what else did she contribute? She just whinged about anything and everything once it was too late.
Originally Posted by
Number Three™:
“She looked sad when Claire and Michael returned to the house without Raef.
”
She will have been even sadder if one of them told her the reason for Raef's sacking. If Raef is full of hot air, Lucinda is positively flying above the clouds on it. She must have realised that it's only a matter of time before she gets found out.
Originally Posted by Vivid:
“There is a remarkable amount of delusional tripe being dispensed on this thread.
Some people seem to think Lucinda is a nice person because she has been the victim of some pretty unpleasant and personal abuse. I have some news for you: being a victim doesn't necessarily make you a nice person or competent at business. Lucinda may have shown concern for other victims of abuse, but this behaviour was essentially just a mutual comforting by the incompetents.
The only reason that, until recently, we have not seen the conceited, self-indulgent and self-serving side of Lucinda is because she has been obliged through her incompetence and low self-esteem to keep a low profile and accommodate others. She had to be more assertive as PM, but the tasks on both occasions ( the ice cream selling and the wedding dress promotion ) required little project management and few decisions and so her being inept, ineffectual and inoffensive were not problems.
The confidence that she gained through winning the wedding task and receiving an endorsement from her team has, as usual with these sorts of people, revealed the true monster that lurks within; she is a petty-minded, inept, confused incompetent who can't prioritise issues or tasks.
She is only at the start of the path to being a competent manager and this was graphically demonstrated in this episode. With her newly gained confidence she decided that a self-serving approach was desirable; she carped at every opportunity, whether on petty or substantive issues, and criticised all team decisions with a destructive vigour so she could later disown them in the boardroom. This negative and immature strategy, which almost amounted to sabotage, was the same strategy that Claire adopted weeks ago and seems to have abandoned after suffering the consequences. Lucinda may in many weeks time develop further and catch up with the rest of them but I doubt it, she is trailing and destined to fail.
An interesting question for Lucinda lovers, who usually dislike Alex, emerges from her recent behaviour: what would you think if Alex had been as disruptive as Lucinda in his tasks ? Had he behaved like Lucinda there would have been a baying for his blood. Alex had the good sense to go along with decisions he couldn't change and make the best of bad jobs, Lucinda couldn't see the bigger picture and indulged every negative and selfish whim she had at the expense of her team.”
I couldn't have put it better.
Originally Posted by The Rhydler:
“They were blatantly trying to bully her out of opinion, accusing her of volounteering for the location job when she clearly did not. Lee tried to shout at her in the cab and she wouldn't stand for it.
And the glut of funny faces the pair made behind her back, they showed her no respect when in fact, everything she said was right. The box looked shit, you don't have dead flowers in an advert.
Of course, Sir Al is willing to overlook this stuff just to eject the posh bloke.”
With all due respect, that is a pile of tripe from the first letter to the last full stop.
Originally Posted by Esqualita:
“aka opinions. You need to tone down your vindictive manner. It stopped me reading the rest of the post, which I'm sure was actually thought-provoking.”
Yes, opinions. Perhaps you need to start reading those of other people instead of dismissing them out of hand because the first line hints at the poster disagreeing with you.
Originally Posted by The Rhydler:
“I noticed the dead flowers. I SAW THEM!”
Who cares? Were they advertising gardening products? It was supposed to be a natural shot. They took it in a field/park/lawn. Did you expect them to travel to RHS Wisley or Kew Gardens for one shot?
As for Lucinda's pathetic opinion that someone blowing their nose is off putting (wakey, wakey, woman ............... natural bodily functions ???), perhaps someone should tell that to companies like Kleenex whose adverts have revolved around people with runny and blocked noses for decades.
Originally Posted by Vivid:
“What people would have spotted and objected to was an ad for homosexual tissues, as per Lucinda's insane idea.”
A measure, if it were needed, of the cluelessness of the woman.
Originally Posted by 2LO:
“Had Clair and Helene had more input to the other team's TV ad they would almost certainly have won and it would have made clear Lucinda's frustration with having to deal with a pair of overgrown schooolboys.”
Brilliant. Absolutely poetic. A pair of overgrown schoolboys? Well, there is something that is beyond Lucinda as her mentality and attitude hasn't made it past nursery yet.
Originally Posted by The Swampster:
“The Atisho ad looked like a spoof of a 70s commercial. It aspired to Cillit Bang's sophistication.”
Does no one buy Cillit Bang because the ads are naff? No. They buy it because they know from the ads what it's for and what it does.
Originally Posted by Lemon Dracula:
“Interesting adverts: all the Lynx ones, the Guinness ones, the Cadbury's ones, the coca-cola ones etc etc. At least if they had gone with the homosexual angle, and that advert was shown on TV, it would get people talking. They'd notice the advert.”
It would put off as many people as it would encourage. Most people buy a product because they like it but many buy it because they want to be associated with it. That is the whole point of celebrity endorsement. Rightly or wrongly and whether you like it or not, a homosexual image would put off some customers, particularly male.
Originally Posted by Katenutzs:
“Lucinda then needs to change her attitude because to me and an awful lot of other people who do not wear lucinda tinted glasses she was rude and obstructive last night, she appeared so negative in everthing she said unless she was been cajoled by the guys. I think they both deserve medals for not arguing back”
I think they both deserve medals for not throttling her.
Originally Posted by GratingCheese:
“Why would being positive about such an awful product be a good thing? I swear you're on another planet.”
You promote a product as if your life depended on its success, if that is what your job is. Do you honestly think all sales people love or even believe in everything they sell?
Originally Posted by GratingCheese:
“She was airing her opinion. She still got on with the job but she let them know what she thought. The decisions the "boss" made during this tasks were bad ones and could have lost them the task. If Renaissance had included more tissue references, Alpha would have been crushed.”
If, if, if.
The point is they didn't. The point is Renaissance got it wrong and Alpha got it closer to right - in spite of Lucidityless.
Originally Posted by Sid_1979:
“Alex is talentless and has been very lucky so far”
The lucky one went last night. I am not Raef's biggest fan but was sad to see him leave last night. It should have been Michael.
However, I had to agree with SAS that Raef had been lucky to not be in the Boardroom more than once before. Alex on the other hand has been unlucky to be on the losing team more times than have been down to him.
Originally Posted by williams96:
“Funny how things can be twisted.
She had to go on so much because she wasn't being listened to at all, as pointed out in the show afterwards she was correct in the things which she was saying. Last week Lucinda made a point to Lee and Lee just took it and that was that. Alex wouldn't do that. Alex said to camera that all he was doing was making her feel like she had 'some' control over something. He was just dismissing her and clearly, I feel, trying to put her in a position where if they lost he could easily try to get her fired. Hence why the moment they got into the boardroom, before they'd even announced the results she was turned on.
I've already pointed out in another thread that SAS said to Claire she hadn't made a big enough point about the advert and she should have drilled it home more and tried to save the task. Well Lucinda was doing that the whole task, because she could see where it was going wrong. They didn't do well, they were just lucky that the other team made such a fundamental error.
Had she not been negative she'd been accused of double standards and so many times in the boardroom it has come up that someone actually wasn't as persuasive towards something as they should have been e.g. with the wedding dresses.
As for Lucinda losing the icecream task, that was basically pure luck that Claire won. Lucinda's team had been better and much better organised. I also believe she's been on the winning team an awful lot compared to most of the candidates left.”
Yes, funny how things can be twisted indeed.
Lee and Alex "turned on" Lucinda in the Boardroom because she had done nothing but prepare to do that herself all day.
They were lucky that the other team made a fundamental error? Weren't the other team unaware and generally incompetent for making that error? The first rule of advertising is give people an idea of what you are actually advertising.
There is putting your case across and there is being negative and obstructive.
Yes, Lucinda has been on the winning team more often than not but, rather like Raef, more through luck than judgement.
Originally Posted by 2LO:
“This really is just your take on it, and you are in a minority.”
Who are you to tell anyone when they are in a minority? Have you interviewed everyone who watches the series?
If not, pray tell, what scientific study have you carried out to prove your theory?
Originally Posted by 2LO:
“If they had lost, and she had not made her position exteremely clear I can picture the scene in the boadroom:
Sugar: Lucinda, were you happy with the design of the box and the ad?
Lucinda: No.
Sugar: Did you make that clear to the others.
Lucinda: I did say that, yes.
Alex: Can I just say that Lucinda was completely happy with the box and the ad.
We've seen almost exactly that happen more than once.
We see someone express a serious doubt but one or more of the remainder of the team lie through their teeth and deny it.
Lucinda made damn sure that couldn't happen this time (although I'm not sure that was her motivation - I think she was just utterly frustrated by the abysmal job the other two had done and felt her input would have lead to a better effort. I'm sure it would).”
Maybe in light of the fact that they won, Margaret should have asked Lucinda or prompted SAS to ask Lucinda whether she was happy with the way things went. Let's see how honest she would have have been then?
Originally Posted by InigoMontoya:
“When, exactly, were Alex and Lee overbearing?”
In Lucinda's dreams.
Oh, sorry, did you not mean it like that?
Originally Posted by InigoMontoya:
“it was Lucinda's behaviour as a team member that was at issue.”
Was that pun intended?