In task 7 the key point was that the candidates should have at least considered matching the products with the business contacts SAS had set up. Philip didn't realise that.
First, neither did anyone else apparently, so that fits with him being at least as good at it as the rest. Secondly, he was on his best behaviour and so said hardly anything, so it's hard to tell if he did in fact disagree with the team's product choices for that reason. I thought he disapproved of the coat rack that Lorraine was keen on, for example, but he keeps his mouth shut and it's the others who shoot it down (especially Yasmina and Ben). (That's part of why he was so bitter in the boardroom; when he didn't fix other people's mistakes, they lost, and he got blamed.)
In week 6 the key point was that the candidates should have read the rules and figured out a strategy, which presumably would have included attempting to identify the high value items and decide which were worth trying to sell. Phil was team leader, didn't know what the rules said and just treated it as a traditional running round selling task.
I think he did understand the rules, specifically that they shouldn't sell items below value. Unlike Ben, his team does leave some items unsold - he knew better than to offload it for a pound like Ben was doing. There was the usual period at the start of valuing stuff, and in fact his team only undersold 2 items of the 10. He grouped the items into antique and modern, which was a reasonable strategy. His big mistake was not realising the rug could be high value, and he made that mistake partly from a personal reaction to Lorraine, who said the rug was an antique in very good condition, when it was clearly modern. He was wrong, but it had nothing to do with not understanding the rules. And of course he led the team to a win.
In week 5, Philip had his pants idea and rammed it through by the force of his personality even though the concept had no coherence at all.
I disagree that he rammed it through. Kimberly was not a push-over. He had two other ideas, both of which were rejected, so we know she didn't accept ideas just because they came from him. We know the team considered at least 5 ideas, and Pantsman was simply the best of them. It did at least satisfy the brief, unlike Lorraine's, so although it wasn't his finest hour I don't think it's an example of him not understanding the rules.
It seems the reason they lost was that they spent a lot of time on an idea of Kimberly, only to be told at the last minute they couldn't use it. Hence Philip didn't get a chance to fully develop the pants thing or come up with something better. In summary, not his fault they lost.
His problems with individual team members was just a consequence of this, his wayward ideas and his inability to adapt to a fresh situation.
Can you give an example of his failing to adapt to a fresh situation?
And he does get on well with most team members. It's invariably the weaker ones he has trouble with, and that's because they are
slower to grasp the point than him and he gets impatient. His criticisms are generally spot on, and show that he does understand what the task is about.
The reason Phil's team often lost was that Phil was in the team.
No, I don't think they lost any task for that reason. He was on the losing side only 3 times, actually. The first was the food task, which they lost because Rocky was terrible and pushed through the ridiculous toga party thing, which Philip had nothing to do with. He didn't found out about it until the end of the first day, by which time Rocky had already spent the money on it. The second task was the cereal advert, and if Philip hadn't been there they'd probably have gone with Lorraine's multiple characters idea, which would have lost even more badly because it was contrary to the client's brief and Sir Alan hate it when people don't pay attention to the brief. (See, eg, Ruth making exactly that mistake a few years ago.) Also, it would have meant producing 4 characters, which is 4 times as much work as producing 1, and they didn't even have time to do a good job of 1...
His third loss was the final one, selling to trade. They lost that because of bad product choice, and Philip kept out of that as far as we could see because he didn't want to argue with Lorraine when she was team leader. OK, he also failed to sell, but even if his half the team had sold as well as Lorraine's half did, they'd still have lost. Lorraine and Yasmina got £1302, so double that for £2604, and it's still nowhere near Mona's team's total of £4501. So, that one was clearly not his fault either. Also, his problem on that task was not friction with other team members, but that he got on with them rather too well.
All the other tasks he was on the winning team: tasks 1 (cleaning), 3 (fitness product), 4 (soap) and 6 (10 items). On at least one of those he contributed the winning idea. I don't want to spend too much time criticising Lorraine on Philip's thread, but I don't think there is
any task where you could say Lorraine's contribution is what won it. There are at least two where she was a major part of why they lost.
Although I think it was right that he be fired in the circumstances that arose, I also think he was a very strong candidate, stronger than many who are left in, and it's rather sad that he's gone. I'm looking at the other boys, Howard, James and Ben, and the field feels rather empty now.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM