The You're Fired Pundits, Nick and Margaret just repeat Sir Allen's opinion and reasoning for firing, as if it was blatently obvious. Well it is obvious with hindsight, but before the board room it's impossible to call. You never know what barely significant detail Sir Allen will pick up on. Anyone can just agree with Sir Allen's final verdict. They can try to make themselves look clever by regurgitating Sir Allen's ill-informed counter-intuititive opinion, but it won't work on me.
Pundits, Nick and Margaret just repeat Sir Allen's opinion
They don't always agree. Sometimes they say "it was Sir Alan's decision, he knows what he's looking for." Meaning they disagree, but they can't do anything about it.
In addition, I think Sir Alan should fire/blame himself for not giving a detailed enough brief. If he wanted in-your-face un-subtle advertising that badly he should have said.
It wouldn't take much effort to reedit Raef's advert so that the box shot was there, and to make the product more prominant in the final frame. However, Alex's advert was crap. One of the people said that they "couldn't run it in its current state". If they were willing to grant changes to one advert, why couldn't they grant it for the other?
It wouldn't take much effort to reedit Raef's advert so that the box shot was there, and to make the product more prominant in the final frame. However, Alex's advert was crap. One of the people said that they "couldn't run it in its current state". If they were willing to grant changes to one advert, why couldn't they grant it for the other?
It's Sir Alan
We don't see all their contributions and Nick disagreed last week with the firing I thought - his facial expression showed this pretty obvious.
We don't see all their contributions and Nick disagreed last week with the firing I thought - his facial expression showed this pretty obvious.
Originally Posted by spoonboy:
“In addition, I think Sir Allen should fire/blame himself for not giving a detailed enough brief. If he wanted in-your-face un-subtle advertising that badly he should have said.
It wouldn't take much effort to reedit Raef's advert so that the box shot was there, and to make the product more prominant in the final frame. However, Alex's advert was crap. One of the people said that they "couldn't run it in its current state". If they were willing to grant changes to one advert, why couldn't they grant it for the other?”
“In addition, I think Sir Allen should fire/blame himself for not giving a detailed enough brief. If he wanted in-your-face un-subtle advertising that badly he should have said.
It wouldn't take much effort to reedit Raef's advert so that the box shot was there, and to make the product more prominant in the final frame. However, Alex's advert was crap. One of the people said that they "couldn't run it in its current state". If they were willing to grant changes to one advert, why couldn't they grant it for the other?”
I thought the "couldn't run in it's current state" comment was ABOUT Raefs as they could run it but would have to re-edit to add in better product shots
Originally Posted by spoonboy:
“D'Oh. I'd edit but I it won't let me.”
“D'Oh. I'd edit but I it won't let me.”
Hehe, We'll let you off and I promise we won't bring it up every 5 mins!
