Thanks, aceplace, for Clay’s blog link.
I was rooting for Dayana to win, just to stick it in Lisa’s face, but this was in some ways more satisfying. Getting Lisa to admit that Dayana can actually do something well was so entertaining. She had to admit that Dayana actually stepped up, and she even said in one of her interviews how having Dayana PM may have allowed her to delegate and not have to keep interjecting ideas. Anyway, they ended up working pretty well together, major shocker.
Even though Penn had to leave that afternoon, he still contributed to the idea and to the script and scene selection. He did a fair amount during the time he was there. Interesting that Dayana’s rationale for not bringing Penn back but Lisa instead was that it might not be fair to hold him accountable for things that happened when he wasn’t there. One could argue that’s why he should be most accountable, but I think that was really a smokescreen. I think at that point Dayana was counting on Lisa being so ticked at Lou that she was actually going to get support. In fact, Dayana didn’t have to lead the attack at all. She had to mount a small defense for why as PM it wasn’t her failure, which she did adequately. (This task was a close one, the clients liked both videos, just the other one a little better. Her having been in the boardroom for several previous tasks was due to her being pushed aside and ignored or not allowed to contribute, and in this one she was able to play a strong role.)
Anyway, Lou tried his usual tactic of being aggressive and jumping to the attack with Lisa, only she didn’t back down, she lit into him back. Couple his threat “if you were a man I’d throw you through the wall” with his opinion that he thought the other team’s commercial was better, and add in that all three team members were in agreement that Lou actually did little to contribute, didn’t offer ideas for improvement during the creative stages, and only raised criticisms in the boardroom after the fact, and he got the axe.
So Mr Twitchy takes the elevator ride.
I liked this from Clay’s blog:
Yeah, Aubrey is so two-faced, she should be named Harvey Dent.
As for the fight between Lisa and Arsenio, I see Lisa’s point. Arsenio was so enraged with Aubrey, her attitude and her unwillingness to take direction and her “me me me” that he launched into her, and in the suite upstairs was cursing her as a bitch and a whore. Lisa took offense at his terms, feeling that his attacks were verging into misogyny rather than just being criticisms of Aubrey. Of course, both of them were so worked up they were yelling past each other. Arsenio was just using whatever terms came to mind, and female-centric terms often come to mind when cursing females, quite apart from any merit to those terms. He felt Lisa was saying he didn’t have the right to be mad and curse at Aubrey, and she was not really clear that her objection was the choice of terms. She finally said something about he should be careful not to make all women in America ticked at him, which is as close as she got to clearly stating her objection.
Then she found out Dee was fired and tore into both Lou and Dayana as worthless.
My evaluation of the videos:
Forte’s concept wasn’t bad, and I agree they made the right choice casting actors. With that concept, neither Lou or Penn would have been the proper fit. Dayana might have worked, but really Star Power isn’t everything. The key is to sell the story of the commercial, and star power would just get in the way of that. My big complaint with the execution was the backdrops looking flat and lame. They didn’t show the application being used, but many commercials don’t show the product being used. And I thought the bit where the guy put his head down toward the woman at the end as he suggesting the baby carriage was spot on. I could see myself doing that (well, if I were married and suggesting baby carriages).
Unanimous’s concept was funny. Sure the double entendre was pretty strong, but it worked okay. Paul was hilarious dressed up that way. If they hadn’t been up against the deadline editing, they might could have dubbed over the line about “old-fashioned”, but honestly, that isn’t bad. Entertainment.com’s concern is that many of their customers are likely to use traditional coupons as well. From that standpoint, the whole plot of the Unanimous ad was off-base. Their premise was that clipping coupons is old-fashioned, when online is quicker and simpler and more versatile and easier. All they did was state that directly. If that really wasn the Entertainment.com’s criticism, they shouldn’t have picked that ad as the winner, because that was the entire theme.
Clay also said this in his blog:
This is a valid observation in general. Everyone wants to contribute and to feel a part of the process. When there aren’t enough tasks going on simultaneously to keep everyone busy, there is a motivation to critique activities that are occurring as a means of contributing. Systematically ignoring or excluding someone (such as Forte did with Dayana in the past) just frustrates them into trying to contribute harder.
There are two key factors to consider. First, are the suggestions being offered valueable, or do they detract? Are they useful, or intrusive? Do they come in a timely manner to help change things, or are they inserted after the fact? And two, does the person making the suggestion do a good job expression the reason for the suggestion? Lou did have a valid point about shooting everything from one angle - the execs even specifically mentioned that as one of their complaints. But the thing is, he didn’t really express why he wanted different angles. So he wasn’t convincing, when Dayana and Lisa were concerned with getting everything shot so they could get the editing done in time. Taking time to reset camera angles didn’t seem to them as important as getting the scenes.
The problem with picking two people is that people want to lay in their own defense. Penn did exactly as you state - he picked two people up front and he went in with his justification - they were the weakest members of the team, not that anyone didn’t do what they were supposed to. But as soon as he told them who they were, they started arguing to defend their position. In particular, Lou. So he starts a preemptive strike.
The problem is that you don’t want to find yourself saying “Everything was great, the team worked wonderfully, So and So was an excellent PM, everyone contributed” and then you lose, you turn around and say “Well, the reason we lost was So and So was a lousy PM - she was clueless and didn’t have a plan, and Mr Smartypants over there didn’t contribute a thing, he just sat in the corner flexing his muscles.” That, and Trump and his offspring are good about picking on the things they observed, and drawing out exactly those kinds of points. Plus, if you were making complaints to the camera or them during shooting, and then go into the boardroom all happyface, they’re going to call you on that duplicity. “What about when you said…?”
In this particular case, first off Lisa had called Lou and Dayana worthless in the suite. Second, he didn’t contribute creatively. He did suggest being in the commercial, but was vetoed. He did suggest different camera angles, but couldn’t justify it and was vetoed. And the one task that he was assigned he couldn’t do. So going in he knew he was not a strong contributor, and knew he was going to be targeted by Lisa for sure. So he tried his standard preemptive attack. Get loud enough and defensive enough and point enough fingers and maybe you can squeak by. It worked for him before. But the thing is, this time his preemptive attack made him seem disloyal to his team, and that ultimately rubbed Trump wrong.
Lisa still irritates the hell out of me.