The Apprentice, Freeloaders!
M25
came for a free drink and a gander at some pics of fish & tits
seemed like a tricky task. And marching that bloke to the cash machine
was very Del Boy.
michael adams
"M25" <M...@TheNet.NET> wrote in message
news:JAPXh.149$H%4....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Latest "Sugarism" -
"The art of business is the business of art"
Or maybe the other way round -
"The business of art is the art of business"
Also maybe the 4th or 5th time in this series he's referred to
potential customers as "nutters".
michael adams
...
Daniel Lincoln
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>"M25" <M...@TheNet.NET> wrote in message
>news:JAPXh.149$H%4....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> Selling photos to those freeloaders who looked like they just
>> came for a free drink and a gander at some pics of fish & tits
>> seemed like a tricky task. And marching that bloke to the cash machine
>> was very Del Boy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Latest "Sugarism" -
>
>"The art of business is the business of art"
>
>Or maybe the other way round -
>
>"The business of art is the art of business"
Apparently "they" say that. Don't know about you, but I've never
heard anyone say it.
>Also maybe the 4th or 5th time in this series he's referred to
>potential customers as "nutters".
As long as you remember that the nutter is always right.
Alan Hope
Once again the task, when you take away all the window-dressing, came
down to a sales contest. Who made the most money? Nothing else is
being tested, since all you have to do is bring in the most dosh and
your performance will not even be looked at, let alone criticised.
The art critic in the BBC Two show afterwards pointed out, for
instance, that the hard-sell indulged in by Christina's team is
anathema to a proper gallery. Why was nobody there to explain how
things work in the world in which the task was set? Because clearly
Natalie did the right thing, as might have been determined by polling
the punters -- would they come back to her gallery? Would they come
back to Christina's?
What's the point, in other words, of setting the various tasks in what
appear to be a variety of business sectors, and then treating every
task as if it were a Saturday afternoon in Top Shop? On sales, clearly
Tre and Adam were top performers. In the art world, however, both were
fish out of water, and I don't mean the ones artfully arranged on a
woman's arse.
--
Alan Hope
http://sour-grapes.tumblr.com/
Jeff Lawrence
news:molv231l1eg25bfnv...@4ax.com...
> What's the point, in other words, of setting the various tasks in what
> appear to be a variety of business sectors, and then treating every
> task as if it were a Saturday afternoon in Top Shop? On sales, clearly
> Tre and Adam were top performers. In the art world, however, both were
> fish out of water, and I don't mean the ones artfully arranged on a
> woman's arse.
But at least Tre and Adam managed to sell some stuff, which was what
the task was really about after all. Katie, for all her bluster about them
not
being part of the art world like she was and that they had no idea how to
sell
or talk about art, sold bugger all.
I really thought Katie may well have got fired if Natalie had brought her
back.
By choosing Lohit instead she gave SAS very little choice. Adam, for all his
negativity, did nothing particularly wrong this week.
Cheers
Jeff
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
I suppose it's the only appropriate name for someone who voluntarily buys
Amstrad stuff.
mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk
From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.
michael adams
"Jeff Lawrence" <jeff.la...@orange.nl> wrote in message
news:462fdc26$0$73671$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:molv231l1eg25bfnv...@4ax.com...
>
> > What's the point, in other words, of setting the various tasks in what
> > appear to be a variety of business sectors, and then treating every
> > task as if it were a Saturday afternoon in Top Shop? On sales, clearly
> > Tre and Adam were top performers. In the art world, however, both were
> > fish out of water, and I don't mean the ones artfully arranged on a
> > woman's arse.
>
> But at least Tre and Adam managed to sell some stuff, which was what
> the task was really about after all. Katie, for all her bluster about
them
> not
> being part of the art world like she was and that they had no idea how to
> sell
> or talk about art, sold bugger all.
...
Indeed. Her snotty remarks didn't really do her any favours and it wasn't
all that obvious to whom they were addressed, or what she was hoping to
gain by them. Or maybe it was the champers talking by that stage.
...
> I really thought Katie may well have got fired if Natalie had brought her
> back.
...
I doubt it somehow-ish. IMO Katie has an aura of calm authority and
competence that may well appeal to Sugar, and could prove useful in any
number of roles. If that is, it wasn't for the snotty asides. Or maybe
Sugar secretly lusts after snotty birds with posh accents and big hooters.
...
> By choosing Lohit instead she gave SAS very little choice. Adam, for all
his
> negativity, did nothing particularly wrong this week.
...
Nevertheless her absence from the final 3 did have the aura of
a fix about it.
michael adams
...
> Cheers
> Jeff
>
>
michael adams
"Daniel Lincoln" <subtl...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:v8kv23l9ofg4mtmj6...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:47:57 +0100, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"M25" <M...@TheNet.NET> wrote in message
> >news:JAPXh.149$H%4....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> >> Selling photos to those freeloaders who looked like they just
> >> came for a free drink and a gander at some pics of fish & tits
> >> seemed like a tricky task. And marching that bloke to the cash machine
> >> was very Del Boy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Latest "Sugarism" -
> >
> >"The art of business is the business of art"
> >
> >Or maybe the other way round -
> >
> >"The business of art is the art of business"
>
> Apparently "they" say that. Don't know about you, but I've never
> heard anyone say it.
...
I spent about 20 minutes trying to work out what it meant. And then
simply gave up.
...
>
> >Also maybe the 4th or 5th time in this series he's referred to
> >potential customers as "nutters".
>
> As long as you remember that the nutter is always right.
...
The problem though is that Sugars business success was based on selling
to the ordinary punters - your typical Dixons customers - "the lorry
driver and his wife" to use Sugar's own phrase. People who's tastes
and aspirations Sugar could identify with and cater for. Not "nutters"
with more money than sense.
That's what doesn't really add up with the programme any more. As Sugars
heart doesn't seem to be in it, half the time.
michael adams
...
Daniel Lincoln
Agreed. By not bringing Katie into the boardroom, Natalie effectively
threw herself on her sword in order to save her best friend. There
was no way Sugar was going to fire Adam or Lohit, so Natalie had to go
by default. The stupid thing is, Natalie probably thought Katie would
have done the same thing for her if the roles had been reversed, but I
strongly suspect that wouldn't have been the case.
Rob Cullen
(and thinks she's a thoroughbred, which she aint!)
--
Protected by www.Spamjab.com {1ClyzYGhYG9yw5arEQ}
"Jeff Lawrence" <jeff.la...@orange.nl> wrote in message
news:462fdc26$0$73671$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Alan Hope
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:54:28 +0200, "Jeff Lawrence"
><jeff.la...@orange.nl> wrote:
>>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:molv231l1eg25bfnv...@4ax.com...
>>> What's the point, in other words, of setting the various tasks in what
>>> appear to be a variety of business sectors, and then treating every
>>> task as if it were a Saturday afternoon in Top Shop? On sales, clearly
>>> Tre and Adam were top performers. In the art world, however, both were
>>> fish out of water, and I don't mean the ones artfully arranged on a
>>> woman's arse.
>>But at least Tre and Adam managed to sell some stuff, which was what
>>the task was really about after all. Katie, for all her bluster about them
>>not
>>being part of the art world like she was and that they had no idea how to
>>sell
>>or talk about art, sold bugger all.
>>I really thought Katie may well have got fired if Natalie had brought her
>>back.
>>By choosing Lohit instead she gave SAS very little choice. Adam, for all his
>>negativity, did nothing particularly wrong this week.
>Agreed. By not bringing Katie into the boardroom, Natalie effectively
>threw herself on her sword in order to save her best friend.
That's how I saw it. Katie had some less than best-friend comments
afterwards. That's less than the betrayal the panel members were
claiming, though. You make comments like that knowing they'll only use
the ones regarding the person who was fired. It makes you look
prescient and in full agreement with AMS.
>There
>was no way Sugar was going to fire Adam or Lohit, so Natalie had to go
>by default. The stupid thing is, Natalie probably thought Katie would
>have done the same thing for her if the roles had been reversed, but I
>strongly suspect that wouldn't have been the case.
Adam was fireproof because he'd made them their money. Lohit has had a
remarkably easy ride. He's essentially done fuck-all but lurk in the
background and he still hasn't been called out to prove himself. With
anyone else Sugar would have been onto him by now, but I think he's
intimidated because Lohit is gay and he doesn't know how to handle
that.
Sofa - Spud
"M25" <M...@TheNet.NET> wrote in message
news:JAPXh.149$H%4....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
WTF?
Sofa - Spud
Game playing and after all it is a game , she knows this and is using it
either to win outright or carve out a TV career. Either way she isn't
bothered I reckon about working for SAS , if she was to win she'll take the
prize and jump.
> >There
> >was no way Sugar was going to fire Adam or Lohit, so Natalie had to go
> >by default. The stupid thing is, Natalie probably thought Katie would
> >have done the same thing for her if the roles had been reversed, but I
> >strongly suspect that wouldn't have been the case.
>
> Adam was fireproof because he'd made them their money. Lohit has had a
> remarkably easy ride. He's essentially done fuck-all but lurk in the
> background and he still hasn't been called out to prove himself. With
> anyone else Sugar would have been onto him by now, but I think he's
> intimidated because Lohit is gay and he doesn't know how to handle
> that.
>
Until SAS's Rottwielers put him in the frame he'll be fine.
Sofa - Spud
but as you say they are going for the bottom line on all this and he got
away with it.
If they didn't do it on the profit/loss thing they'd have to do it on a
points system or feedback and it's too abstract for TV .
You will have noticed that SAS was quite nice about her MBA , though at the
end he said it didn't matter to him which I suppose it doesn't.
Sofa - Spud
"michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:59a0l7F...@mid.individual.net...
emails for the video phone.
MichaelJP
You're right, he just seems to turn up for the conference room shots and
goes through the motions. Doesn't even seem that well briefed a lot of the
time.
I watch it for the team interactions in the tasks but the actual firings
seem to be wholly based on who can be dismissed and still leave an
interesting set of people for the next week.
They could do with a new "boss" on this show but can't imagine anyone else
wanting to do it.
MichaelJP
You wouldn't do a hard sell in a normal gallery, but this task had the
entirely artificial rule of it all having to be done in one day, making it
the only good strategy. It didn't matter if you alienated people if they
weren't going to buy that day.
As SAS has admitted elsewhere, virtually all the Apprentice tasks are about
selling. Shame because the show is supposed to be about business and sales
is just one element, an important one but there are lots of other important
roles.
michael adams
"Rob Cullen" <ro...@burgers.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AfXXh.1443$Ug5...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> Katie looks like a horse.
Didn't seem to do Camilla much harm.
Maybe Sugar's a bit jealous and wants one of his own.
michael adams
...
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:molv231l1eg25bfnv...@4ax.com...
>> What's the point, in other words, of setting the various tasks in what
>> appear to be a variety of business sectors, and then treating every
>> task as if it were a Saturday afternoon in Top Shop? On sales, clearly
>> Tre and Adam were top performers. In the art world, however, both were
>> fish out of water, and I don't mean the ones artfully arranged on a
>> woman's arse.
>But at least Tre and Adam managed to sell some stuff, which was what
>the task was really about after all. Katie, for all her bluster about them
>not
>being part of the art world like she was and that they had no idea how to
>sell
>or talk about art, sold bugger all.
Yes I'm aware of that. That's exactly my point: it shouldn't always be
a question of who sells the most. Fact is, the hard sell of the
winners is the wrong way to sell paintings if you're a gallery in
business. Like it or not, art galleries are businesses, some of them
very successful indeed. They have different rules to car-lots. If this
were truly a business programme, they would pay more attention to the
rules of the business, and not only the rules of Sir Alan's market
stall.
>I really thought Katie may well have got fired if Natalie had brought her
>back.
>By choosing Lohit instead she gave SAS very little choice. Adam, for all his
>negativity, did nothing particularly wrong this week.
Apart from his negativity.
Alan Hope
>WTF?
Yeah, I didn't really get that either. Are there people who go around
without their PIN? Do they have to go somewhere else to get it? Where?
Claret Zip
> Once again the task, when you take away all the window-dressing, came
> down to a sales contest. Who made the most money? Nothing else is
> being tested, since all you have to do is bring in the most dosh and
> your performance will not even be looked at, let alone criticised.
>
Success in this task was also affected by making the right choice of
material to sell.
Jeff Lawrence
> Adam was fireproof because he'd made them their money. Lohit has had a
> remarkably easy ride. He's essentially done fuck-all but lurk in the
> background and he still hasn't been called out to prove himself. With
> anyone else Sugar would have been onto him by now, but I think he's
> intimidated because Lohit is gay and he doesn't know how to handle
> that.
Is Lohit definitely gay? He's obviously very camp but that doesn't
necessarily
mean he's gay.
Cheers
Jeff
Jeff Lawrence
> As SAS has admitted elsewhere, virtually all the Apprentice tasks are about
> selling.
And selling things that are nothing to do with SAS's businesses -
coffee, photos,
sweets. Surely, in a job interview (not that it is of course) the idea
is to find
out how suited someone is for that particular job. These tasks are
pretty much
worthless in that respect.
Cheers
Jeff
Rob Cullen
--
Protected by www.Spamjab.com {1ClyzYGhYG9yw5arEQ}
"michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:59bdmrF...@mid.individual.net...
michael adams
> Only if you think bedding the Prince of Wales is a result
Which it might well be if you look like a horse.
Job description:
Occasional waving to the public through a car window and
opening the odd hospital.
Holidays: 50 weeks per annum.
Salary: c. £1,000,000 p.a.
Place of work: 5 or 6 Royal Palaces in various locations.
Yup, my hear bleeds !
michael adams
...
DavidM
> Is Lohit definitely gay? He's obviously very camp but that doesn't
> necessarily
> mean he's gay.
Yes, he's totally gay. Lohit is as gay as a window.
He messes around, he can't walk straight, he nudges people when they are
trying to make deals...
Daniel Lincoln
wrote:
>Until SAS's Rottwielers put him in the frame he'll be fine.
One thing I noticed last night was that Margaret seemed rather
reluctant to back up Adam's claim that the lip pictures were not his
first choice. We later heard her confirm to Alan that Adam wasn't
lying, but when Adam was asking for confirmation in the boardroom
_her_ lips appeared to be sealed. Contrast this with her and Nick's
attitude when there's something to snipe at a candidate about. They
don't hold their tongues then, do they?
Daniel Lincoln
<ro...@burgers.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Katie looks like a horse.
>
>(and thinks she's a thoroughbred, which she aint!)
She reminds me of Alan Rickman.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/262389~Alan-Rickman-Posters.jpg
http://imagebank.ipcmedia.com/imageBank/cache/k/Katie-Hopkins.jpg
Sofa - Spud
> "Alan Hope" <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote in message
In previous series it was more about organisational capability , with
selling but now as you say it appears only about selling . I see a new
series here - SAS doesn't want to do another series - someone else
running the show for bods to show off their selling capabilites and
the one at the end who has made the most wins. Less business degree
more market trader.
Sofa - Spud
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:34:24 +0100, "Sofa - Spud" <C...@Sofa.co.uk>
I got that too - she was either sure or she wasn't . She should have
made a note.
Too much stuff like this creeping in to this series whereas we didn'
see this before.
Mike
wrote:
>In previous series it was more about organisational capability , with
>selling but now as you say it appears only about selling . I see a new
>series here - SAS doesn't want to do another series - someone else
>running the show for bods to show off their selling capabilites and
>the one at the end who has made the most wins. Less business degree
>more market trader.
Look at the closing credits and you'll see that Patrick Uden is
involved with the creative side of the tasks.
Patrick Uden? Who's he you might ask?
Only a major driving force behind many Channel 4 Equinox episodes over
the years. With such a reputation I would have expected something far
removed than this current sales, sales, sale bias.
--
Sofa - Spud
> --
>
LOL - little more than "Car Boot Challenge" !!
Alan Hope
She clearly knew, and for some reason Adam was very confident that she
knew, so there must have been something that happened at the time. One
of her looks, maybe.
It could just be the editing that made it seem as if he was appealing
for her support and she didn't give it. It might have ruined the
denouement a bit at that point.
Alan Hope
No, you're right. I don't know if he's definitely gay, but if he isn't
he must be shagging exactly whichever of the women he chooses, because
they all think he's gay and as a consequence they're all over him.
I was thinking "he seems gay to me" but that made me think, "How do
you know she is a witch?"
Alan Hope
>http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/262389~Alan-Rickman-Posters.jpg
>http://imagebank.ipcmedia.com/imageBank/cache/k/Katie-Hopkins.jpg
She has magnificent ice-blue eyes.
Probably an icy fanny too, but one out of two ain't bad.
Jeff Lawrence
> Probably an icy fanny too, but one out of two ain't bad.
Well, it obviously thawed at least twice in the past as she
has two kids I think.
Cheers
Jeff
Alan Hope
>In previous series it was more about organisational capability , with
>selling but now as you say it appears only about selling . I see a new
>series here - SAS doesn't want to do another series - someone else
>running the show for bods to show off their selling capabilites and
>the one at the end who has made the most wins. Less business degree
>more market trader.
I'd be more interested in watching the opposite: a series of tasks
that revealed other useful business talents, with the result based on
a serious evaluation by people who know what they're talking about,
rather than a jumped-up barraboy.
Look, Tre sold some painting, so he'd have been fireproof even if his
team had lost, agreed? And yet in the business of art galleries, he
was not only as unsuited as it's possible to get, he was completely
blatant in his decision to undermine the team and the task, for what
were personal, and I should imagine religious, reasons.
He did everything in his power to fuck up his own team. He censored
the art on show. He made a mockery of it in his explanations to
potential customers (did no-one else get that he was taking the
piss?). He did nothing at all throughout the day to advance the team's
chances.
But on the night he "sold" some pictures, which is easy to understand
because they are very striking images, and someone possibly thought
the artist had potential. That's what art buyers invest in. Not
whether it'll look nice in a fish'n'chips shop as some idiot asked.
So Tre did everything wrong, by the standards of the art business and,
more importantly, by the standards of the show. But because his
efforts to sabotage the art were unsuccessful, and people bought
pictures despite him, he gets to claim the credit, and now he can add
this to the list of things he's very good at, as he said later.
Selling can involve no talent at all. Sometimes it's just a matter of
letting people buy what they want to buy anyway. I have to print some
tickets for a choir concert I'm singing in in June. The thought
occured to me that we might cover our costs by selling the space on
the back of the ticket to another group who have a show coming up, at
a price low enough to cover our costs and not put them off. I sent out
an email last night, and had the spot sold this morning.
That's selling, in that it brings in money. It's selling, as in
offering something for a price that someone is willing to pay. But
it's not "selling" as in the talent someone needs to have to survive
in business. Having the idea was a little bit clever, but only for our
sector, not in general. Any fool could have had the idea. Once it was
out there, it was a no-brainer. Essentially it's a flyer people carry
around in their wallets instead of chucking in the bin, and its
targeted to those people who spend money on tickets, by definition.
That's a case of selling breadcrumbs to pigeons, and I think that's
all Tre did.
Alan Hope
Not really. The person who sold the most was selling material he
vehemently opposed. He turned pictures to the wall, excluded some from
the hanging altogether, bad-mouthed the stuff from beginning to end
and even undermined the art by mocking it during the view.
Despite all that, people decided to buy it, because it is good stuff,
and he takes the credit. Had his strategy been successful, not only
would they have sold nothing, but some Talibanis would have come
storming in and slashed all the titty pictures.
So it's a test of nothing.
michael adams
> Claret Zip goes:
>
> >On 25 Apr, 23:37, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> Once again the task, when you take away all the window-dressing, came
> >> down to a sales contest. Who made the most money? Nothing else is
> >> being tested, since all you have to do is bring in the most dosh and
> >> your performance will not even be looked at, let alone criticised.
>
> >Success in this task was also affected by making the right choice of
> >material to sell.
>
> Not really.
...
Yes really. The main reason the "snotties" lost is because they were trying
to sell £1000 pictures inside a £50- £100 time frame and using £100 methods.
If they'd have had more time and were able to do proper marketing beforehand
then they may have been more succesful.
...
> The person who sold the most was selling material he
> vehemently opposed. He turned pictures to the wall, excluded some from
> the hanging altogether, bad-mouthed the stuff from beginning to end
> and even undermined the art by mocking it during the view.
The fact remains he was selling cheaper items more suited to that
situation and timescale.
Same as the car salesman. Ordinary car sales techniques are more suited
to £100 pictures than to £1000 pictures. The snotties had the right
general approach the drinky poos etc, but they didn't get enough of
the right punters through the door and didn't have enough time
to work on them. In real life they'd maybe be phoning back the next
days to complete a deal.
>
> Despite all that, people decided to buy it, because it is good stuff,
> and he takes the credit. Had his strategy been successful, not only
> would they have sold nothing, but some Talibanis would have come
> storming in and slashed all the titty pictures.
>
> So it's a test of nothing.
Yes it is, The snotties chose the wrong category and price range of
merchandise for selling stone cold in a single evening to complete
strangers.
michael adams
...
Sofa - Spud
> "Alan Hope" <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote in message
I'm getting ""Warm Fuzzies"" here!!
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:a3f3339p5mcj0u1cl...@4ax.com...
>> Claret Zip goes:
>> >On 25 Apr, 23:37, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> Once again the task, when you take away all the window-dressing, came
>> >> down to a sales contest. Who made the most money? Nothing else is
>> >> being tested, since all you have to do is bring in the most dosh and
>> >> your performance will not even be looked at, let alone criticised.
>> >Success in this task was also affected by making the right choice of
>> >material to sell.
>> Not really.
>...
>Yes really. The main reason the "snotties" lost is because they were trying
>to sell £1000 pictures inside a £50- £100 time frame and using £100 methods.
>If they'd have had more time and were able to do proper marketing beforehand
>then they may have been more succesful.
So the task was entirely unsuited to the sector it purported to be
about.
My point was that Tre sold more despite -- not because of -- the
material he had to sell. Here comes the paragraph where I say exactly
that. I'm surprised you missed it.
>> The person who sold the most was selling material he
>> vehemently opposed. He turned pictures to the wall, excluded some from
>> the hanging altogether, bad-mouthed the stuff from beginning to end
>> and even undermined the art by mocking it during the view.
>The fact remains he was selling cheaper items more suited to that
>situation and timescale.
But not to the art-gallery business. Which doesn't at all work the way
the task was set up.
>Same as the car salesman. Ordinary car sales techniques are more suited
>to £100 pictures than to £1000 pictures. The snotties had the right
>general approach the drinky poos etc, but they didn't get enough of
>the right punters through the door and didn't have enough time
>to work on them. In real life they'd maybe be phoning back the next
>days to complete a deal.
That's right. That's how the business works. Not the way the programme
required.
>> Despite all that, people decided to buy it, because it is good stuff,
>> and he takes the credit. Had his strategy been successful, not only
>> would they have sold nothing, but some Talibanis would have come
>> storming in and slashed all the titty pictures.
>> So it's a test of nothing.
>Yes it is, The snotties chose the wrong category and price range of
>merchandise for selling stone cold in a single evening to complete
>strangers.
It's not a test of the business sector is was set up in. Far from
being pushed to rethink their notions of selling to suit a new
environment -- which you might think would be interesting for a
business programme to engineer -- they were thrown into an unfamiliar
milieu and forced to use techniques which don't differ from the
selling techniques used throughout the series, but which are utterly
inappropriate for the art gallery world.
A completely missed opportunity, in other words.
michael adams
> michael adams goes:
>
> >"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >news:a3f3339p5mcj0u1cl...@4ax.com...
> >> Claret Zip goes:
> >> >On 25 Apr, 23:37, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Once again the task, when you take away all the window-dressing,
came
> >> >> down to a sales contest. Who made the most money? Nothing else is
> >> >> being tested, since all you have to do is bring in the most dosh and
> >> >> your performance will not even be looked at, let alone criticised.
>
> >> >Success in this task was also affected by making the right choice of
> >> >material to sell.
>
> >> Not really.
>
> >...
>
> >Yes really. The main reason the "snotties" lost is because they were
trying
> >to sell £1000 pictures inside a £50- £100 time frame and using £100
methods.
> >If they'd have had more time and were able to do proper marketing
beforehand
> >then they may have been more succesful.
>
> So the task was entirely unsuited to the sector it purported to be
> about.
...
There's galleries and galleries though. See below.
...
>
> My point was that Tre sold more despite -- not because of -- the
> material he had to sell. Here comes the paragraph where I say exactly
> that. I'm surprised you missed it.
>
> >> The person who sold the most was selling material he
> >> vehemently opposed. He turned pictures to the wall, excluded some from
> >> the hanging altogether, bad-mouthed the stuff from beginning to end
> >> and even undermined the art by mocking it during the view.
...
I appreciate that. The point I'm making is that at the cheaper price level,
like in Athena* the stuff either sells itself, off the wall, or it doesn't.
It doesn't really need any big sales pitch to get people to part with £50
if they already like the stuff. Not as compared with £1000 anyway. And
certainly not with £1000 or £1,500 for one photographic print. No matter
how appealing it might be. So the trick is in getting the right merchandise
to sell in the first place. The task and timescale was ideally suited to
flogging Athena type stuff IOW, where the assistants simply took the money -
swiped the cards or whatever, rather than having to do any real persuading.
* Went bust in the early 90's apparently.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4294667,00.html
...
The concept of an "Art gallery" though, can cover almost anything from
Athena selling posters of Klimt, or Che, or that tennis player scratching
her arse for a fiver, to Malborough Fine Art flogging Francis Bacons at 10
million quid a throw. Photographs are always a bit iffy in that regard
IMO as its almost impossible to distinguish between genuine hand
printed limited editions where the negatives have been destroyed and
beautifully produced rip-off shite, knocked up by the score in Hong Kong
at a fiver a throw. Allegedly. And certainly since Photo Shop.
>
> A completely missed opportunity, in other words.
Well yes and no. One real problem with the programme IMO is that they
simply don't get enough time for the various tasks. Either for the
planning or the execution. The timescale they're given is more
suited to a planks and ladders and lengths of rope and needing
to cross a river without getting wet, sort of problem. Not a devising
and market testing a money making business or product sort of problem.
This seems to be another illusion created and encouraged by the programme.
Sugar keeps mentioning a "job interview lasting 13 weeks". Or whatever.
When in fact it doesn't. It's transmitted over 13 weeks that's all. If
each task really took a week, then that might represent a real test
of something. As it is, with each task taking two days max, it's all
over presumably within four weeks.
michael adams
...
Alan Hope
>> >> Not really.
>> >...
>There's galleries and galleries though. See below.
>> My point was that Tre sold more despite -- not because of -- the
>> material he had to sell. Here comes the paragraph where I say exactly
>> that. I'm surprised you missed it.
>> >> The person who sold the most was selling material he
>> >> vehemently opposed. He turned pictures to the wall, excluded some from
>> >> the hanging altogether, bad-mouthed the stuff from beginning to end
>> >> and even undermined the art by mocking it during the view.
>I appreciate that. The point I'm making is that at the cheaper price level,
>like in Athena* the stuff either sells itself, off the wall, or it doesn't.
>It doesn't really need any big sales pitch to get people to part with £50
>if they already like the stuff. Not as compared with £1000 anyway. And
>certainly not with £1000 or £1,500 for one photographic print. No matter
>how appealing it might be. So the trick is in getting the right merchandise
>to sell in the first place. The task and timescale was ideally suited to
>flogging Athena type stuff IOW, where the assistants simply took the money -
>swiped the cards or whatever, rather than having to do any real persuading.
>* Went bust in the early 90's apparently.
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4294667,00.html
That's all fair enough. But that's not what they were presented with.
One of the galleries was the Brick Lane, which is so well known even
I've heard of it. These were not emporia of tat.
Almost. The fact remains the galleries were in fashionable Hoxton, and
one of them was the Brick Lane, and this was by no means Athena
territory. Nor were any of the artists involved in any way
down-market, although prices did vary greatly.
>Photographs are always a bit iffy in that regard
>IMO as its almost impossible to distinguish between genuine hand
>printed limited editions where the negatives have been destroyed and
>beautifully produced rip-off shite, knocked up by the score in Hong Kong
>at a fiver a throw. Allegedly. And certainly since Photo Shop.
I dare say buying it from a reputable gallery helps assuage one's
doubts. A car-boot sale might be a different story.
>> A completely missed opportunity, in other words.
>Well yes and no. One real problem with the programme IMO is that they
>simply don't get enough time for the various tasks. Either for the
>planning or the execution. The timescale they're given is more
>suited to a planks and ladders and lengths of rope and needing
>to cross a river without getting wet, sort of problem. Not a devising
>and market testing a money making business or product sort of problem.
I agree completely. But I think even within the time strictures,
better tasks could be devised to test business acumen, rather than
pure three-pair-for-a-pound selling.
>This seems to be another illusion created and encouraged by the programme.
>Sugar keeps mentioning a "job interview lasting 13 weeks". Or whatever.
>When in fact it doesn't. It's transmitted over 13 weeks that's all. If
>each task really took a week, then that might represent a real test
>of something. As it is, with each task taking two days max, it's all
>over presumably within four weeks.
Yes.