New Member
|
(Here's an extract of some feedback that when to ukgameshows and RDF Media ... seems there's a fair bit of serious analysis as well as discontent out there re: Ivan & Co.. It's well long, but well worth the read though).
Not sure Karen Dwyer would think it a fair result ... and neither, it seems, do others; just take a look at this extract from a posting on the prog' - quite an opus!
" ... The program presented the 'competition' as one where the novices would be 'guided' by the mentors in the establishment of the novices' own business.
Businesses in which the mentors had an interest (presumably to ensure a level of
genuine concern for the success of the business) but in which the novices were
the actual players.
The mentors' role being one of guidance and advice to help the novices negotiate
their own way through the commercial world and to engage in the processes
involved in the creation and growth of a successful businesses; but not to 'run'
the business for the novices and not to take the lead in the day-to-day
decisions of the business - and certainly not to play the novices off against
each other (for the mentors' own benefit?).
In the case of Ivan (The Terrible?! “ITTâ€), in marked contrast to the other
two mentors, Chris and Emma, both of whom seemed to genuinely care about their
charges (well people in general) and who acquitted themselves most admirably in
their mentoring roles throughout the entirety of the 'competition', it appeared
from the program that ITT put himself in a controlling position very early on;
the manner gave the impression that it may even have been his prior intention to
do so.
The contribution that was required for entry into the 'competition', for
successful presentation to the mentors, and for the commencement of the
enterprise, was equal for both novices - and this contribution they both
provided; however, the personal circumstances of the two novices were, despite
certain similarities, very significantly different; and so the hurdles that each
had to overcome in order to make and maintain their contributions was,
correspondingly, significantly skewed. Essentially there was a major disparity
between the novices’ personal situations and so there was a major disparity in
what was required of each of them in order to provide those 'apparently' equal
contributions.
Very early on ITT, strangely for a mentor, began to use the disparity in the
novices’ circumstances in a most divisive way. Rather than offering advice on
how problems might be tackled in order to provide leveler ground for both the
novices he, on the one hand, said such problems as, for e.g., child care, were
not his problem and he did not want to make them his as he was 'only' the
mentor, and, on the other hand, he entered into the business full-time. Indeed
he was running the operation, using one novice as (little more than?) a PA, and
referring to the enterprise as 'his' business with amazing alacrity.
Additionally, whilst highlighting the difficulties that one of the novices was
encountering to the other novice - and not offering any practical advice or
practical assistance to the novice he was being so disparaging about - he was
simultaneously providing the other novice with additional help and facilities
(e.g. on site accommodation) in order to allow her to perform a better business
function. The mentor was, it seemed, creating additional disparity between the
novices and actively using a form of 'divide-and-conquer' manipulation on them
whilst increasing the strength of his own role in the business.
Furthermore, on several occasions he seemed to deliberately mislead one of the
novices, one could perhaps say he even lied; for e.g. when one of the novices
took, what was for them, an incredible additional burden - financially and
situation-ally - he said he would give it 'three weeks', within a day he then
engineered her 'dismissal' (from her own company?!). Additionally, as well as
being virtually evicted from the company's offices she was summarily stripped of
the resources necessary not only to conduct her business but also to be able to
communicate with it effectively; she was given no audience, no say and no
recourse!
(A high temperature in a small child is potentially a very serious, even life
threatening, issue; a matter of some priority and deserving of some compassion
one might think. It did not seem ITT is strong on compassion. It is oft heard
said that one needs to be ruthless in business; but this is not in fact so - it
is merely an excuse used by the lazy and the unprincipled to try and excuse any
lack of morals, fairness, sympathy or compassion in the way they conduct
themselves).
This raises hugely important issues as to exactly what 'mentoring' advice he had
initially supplied to 'both' of the novices with respect to some absolute
fundamentals as to how the business was, or was to be, configured.
For example:
The possible types of company structure and which might be best suited to the
particular enterprise.
The agreements and documentation required to support such structures; e.g.
Memoranda and Articles.
The legal responsibilities of roles within the chosen structure, and the
contracts necessary to account for them; e.g. Director's service contracts.
How such responsibilities were to be addressed.
How the day-to-day and strategic decisions were practically and actually to be
made, and by whom.
What the shareholding situation was; both in divisions and type; and thus also
...
How the board was to be constructed and the respective voting rights at board
meetings, AGMs and EGMs.
How problems were to be addressed and managed, and any respective thresholds
that could not or would not be tolerated and how to work within them; and so ...
What constituted particular goals and success markers for their particular
business and, correspondingly, what constituted specific failure markers for
their particular business.
What the (at least) general legalities of a corporate entity, of Directorship or
Partnership, and of shareholding entailed.
Indeed, it would seem from the level of genuine shock, dismay and confusion on
the face of the 'sacked' novice that they had not even had some general priming
on such issues, let alone the kind of 'advice' one might expect of an
experienced businessman acting as a 'mentor'.
In fact, when asked during the judging about ‘the other’ novices'
shareholding ITT responding in a vague and dismissive manner that she "... never
subscribed ...". This seems most peculiar and further would seem to support the
view that he had not advised, or maybe had even mis-advised, the novices
regarding decision making and shareholding. From a financial standpoint alone
the £15,000 that the novice had to find clearly indicated her true intention to
have a share of the business, the additional £5,000 she later raised massively
emphasising this; if she was not properly advised, or worse mis-advised, by her
'mentor' then there are much more serious issues here than the novices 'simply'
being naive about business - possibly even very serious compensation; or perhaps
even what amounts to negligence and deception issues given that the mentor was
both an interested party and an experienced and knowledgeable businessman.
Competition-wise it also seems odd that the ‘prize’ for what was presented
as a challenge to 'mentor' two novices to the establishment of a successful
enterprise should go to a business where the mentor took a full-time role in the
business and, certainly from the program, appeared to be in complete and sole
control of all the real decision making.
With specific respect to the contribution of two novices in the Shampoo
business:
The 'competition' required that two people presented themselves for the
opportunity of being 'mentored' in the development of a successful (valued at a
million pound +) business.
So some serious questions need to be raised about what constitutes a real and
valuable contribution to the whole enterprise; irrespective of the timing or
duration of such contribution.
For e.g.:
1) The competition needed two people; so of the two who was it that spotted the
promotion for the competition in the first place?
2) Someone will almost certainly have been the (at least initial) driving force
in convincing the other to partner-up and try for the opportunity; so, who was
it that took the lead in encouraging the other to present themselves to Channel
4 and the mentors? (Even if a clear lead were not appreciable, then the support
and encouragement each to the other would still have been essential in bringing
both parties to the point of actual application).
3) Presenting to Channel 4 and the mentors required, of necessity, two people;
an individual would not have been accepted. Therefore the presence of 'both'
novices was fundamental to a) being allowed to go forward for consideration, and
b) to their being chosen as the successful candidates by the mentor. This
pairing was absolutely essential for both (or either) of the presentees to even
begin to go forward with the creation of a successful business.
How much then is such a vital contribution worth - even were there no other
input the process could not even have begun without it, so it is of tremendous
and significant value; so how much?
4) (Similar weighting to above) Both novices were required to provide an equal
financial contribution to the embryonic enterprise - without which the novices,
collectively, would not have been able to go on to the next phase. So, again,
this raising of finance was absolutely essential for both (or either) of the
novices to move ahead; and again, how much is this additional, vital
contribution worth?
5) Any tasks genuinely undertaken - to whatever degree of competency - deserve
to be acknowledged and their contribution amply recognised. Such recognition
includes both where tasks are either successful in themselves, or where they
illuminate that further, or other, attention is required (and this later
necessarily even includes where tasks have failed); this is a fundamental and
essential mechanism in any successful enterprise! (It seemed that whilst the
'mentor' and his PA were able to freely criticise the other novice, there was
never any encouragement or praise; nor did it seem that the other novice was
given any opportunity to offer critique to or of the 'mentor' and his PA).
It is almost certainly the case that the 'sacked' novice both deserves to hold a
significant share of the current business and any derivatives or spin-offs AND
be seriously compensated for the disparity in treatment within the business and
the apparent unfair and incredibly sudden dismissal from what should have been
her own business. There are also likely to be issues with emotional trauma and
distress resulting from the treatment she received at the hands of someone who
was supposed to be her friend and someone that was supposed to be her mentor.
If the enterprise is looking like it will achieve its’ aims, and/or ITT really
does have substantial assets, then there are possibly a host of legal firms that
would be so keen to take on the 'sacked' novices cause that they could even take
it up on a contingency basis.
Some general observations on how ITT appeared to behave
Out of the candidates presented to him he chose the pair who did not present
with a specific business idea.
He immediately presented them with a 'here's one I prepared earlier' idea.
He 'officially' put himself in a full-time role virtually immediately.
He began a process of undermining the friendship of the two novices by
divisively disparaging the efforts and difficulties of one whilst simultaneously
providing the other with additional support and facilities.
When the business began to look like it was going to be successful, requiring
the use of ".... £40,000 of their own money ..." (which was fundamentally no
different to the other teams?! The point of the original financial requirements
anyway?! It's standard in any event, irrespective of the 'competition', for
entrepreneurs to risk their own capital - as in the adage 'you've got to spend
some money to make some money' - speculate to accumulate!) the returns clearly
demonstrated a viable business in, at least (at least!) the short to medium
term. It then seemed that a further cash injection of £150,000 was going to be
required to meet the next round of orders. As the principle speculation stage
was completed and the actual orders and returns were demonstrating viability why
did ITT not inject that capital himself - as a successful businessman worth "...
more than £30Million ..." he should have had either no problem putting in his
own cash or getting support from a lending house (rather than an investment route which would be likely to dilute equity).
If the 'rules' of the competition' did not preclude him using his 'mentoring'
status to enter and run the business full-time, then surely those 'rules' would
not prevent him from furthering his investment in the enterprise or making a
loan to it!?
When a potential investor was 'approved' by the remaining novice ... ITT saying
it was her decision ... the very next day he overturned that decision very much
in the manner of an employer/manager rather than as a mentor to another's
business in which he had an interest.
Further to this, our successful businessman appeared to so rapidly run out of
potential contacts, and the initiative to find them, for investment that he
approached a fellow mentor in the competition. This, again, would indicate that
the 'rules' did not prevent the mentors furthering their investments in the
novices' businesses. So, again, why did ITT not stump up?!
ITT's behaviour certainly never seemed to be that of a mentor; but it also did
not seem to stack up in terms of a genuinely successful and resourceful
businessman.
Why might this be?
It does not seem unnatural, therefore, to wonder how ITT's personal liquid
assets and the actual financial and trading position of ITT's other interests
actually stood in the period leading up to the 'competition'.
It seems almost as if ITT had an idea which he was unable to run with in, at
least, either or both of financial or labour resource terms.
The 'competition', if not requiring the actual banking of his share of the
financial contribution - or if allowing him the possibility of holding a
position within the enterprise which meant he could directly control the
finances - provided him with the opportunity of appearing to be a magnanimous
businessman engaged in a 'competition' primarily for the financial benefit of
the competitors and his own kudos, whilst actually providing him with the
opportunity to acquire labour resource which not only would require no outlay
but would actually bring financial resource in along with it.
As the enterprise begins to look like it's in with a chance he seems to not only
increase his efforts to drive a wedge between the two novices but very rapidly,
actually make the decision that one of them is out; and is actually seen in the
program to break his word to her, and treat her very derisively, when he does
oust her. This looks very much like someone who has had an eye on controlling
the direction of the business from the outset also being pre-prepared to
increase his share of the business when it is looking like the risk element is
becoming marginal.
If something like this is the case then it does not augur well for the remaining
novice.
Although she did not prove herself to be a stalwart friend when the need for
true friendship and the support by which it is proven were called for, she was
heavily manipulated by ITT and as a result is likely to have a very skewed idea
of what they did in order to get as far as they did, and of what is really
necessary to be successful.
When ITT is no longer around to run the show, unless he has placed other people
in the enterprise in such a way as protect his interests whilst giving her the
impression of being at the helm then she could end up in dire straights; though,
extending the opinion of what may have transpired to date, it would seem more
likely that now the enterprise is out of the spotlight of the 'competition'
then, should it continue to be successful, ITT will work to maneuver the
remaining novice out too. Indeed, are such plans already in place?
The remaining novice has also placed herself in a precarious position in a
number of other respects: in particular the footage clearly shows that she and
her (original) partner presented to the competition with no business idea
whatsoever. ITT then presented them with one he already had to hand. The product
came to bear a signed statement from the novice to the effect that she ‘was
inspired to develop the products’ and start the business as a result of her
child’s eczema clearing up … this is patently untrue; indeed no one could be
blamed for calling it an outright lie!
Advertising and spin are used all around us, but (generally) care is taken to
avoid actually promoting a falsehood; but signing one’s name to a demonstrably
false statement specifically designed to mislead the buying public is very, very
worrying indeed! This came about, as shown in the program and on Channel 4’s
website, as the result of another of ITT’s ideas; but one that the novice has
herself signed her name to, and as such holds principal responsibility for.
In fact so basic is this deception likely to be to the positioning, marketing
and sale of the products that it is certainly worthy of a report to Trading
Standards and any organisations stocking the products – but it is also likely
worthy of serious legal opinion too.
The statement has potentially very serious knock-on consequences as well. The
footage didn’t indicate that there had been any testing of the products; none
whatsoever! This is for products that are aimed at young children!! Children
with their still developing immune systems are believed to be significantly more
susceptible and less resilient than adults to certain toxins and allergens. The
likes of Johnson&Johnson spend serious time, money and effort on ensuring the
safety of their products for general consumption (even Body Shop ensures the
integrity of their range), and continue to monitor them even once they are
finally made available to the public. If the products had not been tested prior
to their general supply then this is another area for Trading Standards – and
legal opinion too.
If the products really had not been professionally tested prior to their being
supplied to the public then the management of the whole enterprise is likely to
be culpable of negligence should any adverse effects be attributed to the
products in the medium to long term. However, if it could be shown (and due to
the nature of the statement it almost certainly could) that the signed statement
by the novice had been influential, either directly or by reference, in the
decision to buy the products then the novice would not only share in any blame
but would be likely to shoulder further liability beyond that of her
co-directors/employees.
But then again perhaps it does make a form of perverted sense; the products have
been aimed at children, but when Ms Dwyer was contacted by the day care centre
about her child running a temperature (a very serious symptom in such a young
child) not only did neither ITT nor the other novice show any sympathy or offer
her any support they used it as a lever to oust her. This would tend to indicate
that they care little for the well being of others; and if they care so little
for those who have been close to and tried to support them then they are hardly
likely to care what happens to the children of the general public (provided it
doesn’t impinge on profits one might imagine!).
It was mentioned earlier that “It is oft heard said that one needs to be
ruthless in business; but this is not in fact so - it is merely an excuse used
by the lazy and the unprincipled to try and excuse any lack of morals, fairness,
sympathy or compassion in the way they conduct themselvesâ€.
It seems the ‘Halos’ is in any practical sense redundant in the name of this
business and the hearts of those now running it. "
Rather a convincing opinion if you mange to get get through it - phew!
|
Karen
