So we entered the Dragons Den. Taking the roles of Duncan Bannatyne et al were the course leader, a couple of third year illustration students, Johnathan Hitchen and a representative from local design group Burn Everything. A daunting line-up indeed, granted only one, Hitch, had prior knowledge of the brief and was most suited to pass comment - we had to impress them. However, with only 30 minutes rehearsal time it was more of a case of hoping that things went right than confidence.
That said, the presentation went well with no hitches almost exactly as planned. There was one small issue with the order of the slides but we covered for that well. Our presentation, probably the shortest of the pitches was to the point and relatively efficient... so we thought.
Whilst not exactly being trashed by the Dragons, we were made to feel inadequate and that we, as a design team, sucked, quite frankly. The idea turned out to be the major positive point though our presentation was 'all over the place'. In other words, we hadn't exactly nailed the point of the presentation: we needed to present one idea rather than all the ones we came up with. Bah. The Burn Everything representative gave us 2 for presentation and 2 for the idea: not exactly flattering, and slightly harsh, in my opinion. But then, how many clients have I worked for?
The team will take away much from the pitch: lack of direction was our downfall. The lessons have been learned. Whether we will act on them in the future is yet to be seen.
On the whole, I think the pitch went as well as we could expect given the amount of praparation time allocated. We all performed our allocated tasks quite well and spoke confidently. We were, however, not helped by the absence of one group member, who just so happened to be the most confident public speaker. As a result I feel we were not as effective as we could have been. This should not be an excuse, however: we failed to focus on an individual idea rather explained what we had done.
Given that, the idea, which before the pitch I felt confident in, turned out to be trashed by the dragons. However I feel this should not be taken too seriously as their marking was somewhat erratic and highly judgmental: a team with a better idea than us scored lower. This highlights how subjective art can be: it is all down to one's individual opinion. This is also clearly present in the 'real life' television version of Dragon's Den.
I feel we did quite well under the circumstances, a lack of preparation and direction let us down a little bit. The idea was not very well presented: we should have focused on the book idea and brought everything back to it: perhaps we should have made more clear the fact that the 'erratic' imagery would all be compiled in one book.
In all, my confidence in the idea has all but gone: we might as well have chose something else: perhaps the stalker website would have been a better idea. As for my thoughts on the group, we functioned quite well on the whole but lacked a strong leader who could push the idea forward or direct our focus.
Also, I'm surprised Martin couldn't recognise bangers and mash... :)
There was a random factor to the profile of each group. This did have an effect on the success or failure of the each Presentation. It was interesting observing how some teams would debate and discuss ideas in Progress. Certain individuals definitely came across in a very positive light, whereas others had decided not to play. Considering the short deadline – most groups did exceptionally well. Even Smub, who had real group dynamic issues, had the guts to make a presentation. Dragon X hadn’t read the brief some of the feedback was uneven.
Finally, well done to Dan Farrimond for his comments.
I decided to cool down before commenting or it could have been bitter...very bitter! Martin Downie I invite you to consider the following: 1)Constructive criticsm is always more valuable than personal and uninformed responses. Perhaps if you had read the briefs and understood what we had been asked to do in the first place your comments may have been more considered. We had been given a few days to decide on the brief and collectively choose one. The pitch to the panel was not the finished art work but roughs to support the ideas. We understood that only after this stage would we be expected to go ahead and design the final outcome. 2)_Some of the slogans you criticised were actually on the brief given to us.e.g. 'together we can stop climate chaos.' You told one group to get rid of it as its not working! 3) The tone overall was very offputting for all students waiting in line for the chop. I personally was put off when presenting by catching you shaking your head and pulling faces whilst looking up at the visuals! Maybe our presentations would have been stronger and more confident overall if we felt that the judging was fair and not some experiment in humiliating students. There were definately flaws and inconsistencies in your judgement of each group. I feel that the marks given to most groups were totally inconsistent in that even if the idea wasnt strong they were still marked low for presentation. The main point of the presentation was to sell the idea and communicate how it could be applied, not to recount the journey that the group had gone through in getting to that point. Again, you missed the point.
Yes, I know art is subjective and I am aware that we won't be wrapped up in cotton wool when we enter the industry but I left the dragons den experience feeling very disheartened along with many students. In the time we had been given and the random nature of the teams and group dynamics etc, we deserved not to be torn apart by someone who was expecting a finished presentation. In retrospect I wish I'd made these points to you at the presentation. I think its only fair that if the panel can criticise us for a 'missed opportunity' I can echo the same sentiment back to you. Gill Smith
3 comments:
So we entered the Dragons Den. Taking the roles of Duncan Bannatyne et al were the course leader, a couple of third year illustration students, Johnathan Hitchen and a representative from local design group Burn Everything. A daunting line-up indeed, granted only one, Hitch, had prior knowledge of the brief and was most suited to pass comment - we had to impress them. However, with only 30 minutes rehearsal time it was more of a case of hoping that things went right than confidence.
That said, the presentation went well with no hitches almost exactly as planned. There was one small issue with the order of the slides but we covered for that well. Our presentation, probably the shortest of the pitches was to the point and relatively efficient... so we thought.
Whilst not exactly being trashed by the Dragons, we were made to feel inadequate and that we, as a design team, sucked, quite frankly. The idea turned out to be the major positive point though our presentation was 'all over the place'. In other words, we hadn't exactly nailed the point of the presentation: we needed to present one idea rather than all the ones we came up with. Bah. The Burn Everything representative gave us 2 for presentation and 2 for the idea: not exactly flattering, and slightly harsh, in my opinion. But then, how many clients have I worked for?
The team will take away much from the pitch: lack of direction was our downfall. The lessons have been learned. Whether we will act on them in the future is yet to be seen.
On the whole, I think the pitch went as well as we could expect given the amount of praparation time allocated. We all performed our allocated tasks quite well and spoke confidently. We were, however, not helped by the absence of one group member, who just so happened to be the most confident public speaker. As a result I feel we were not as effective as we could have been. This should not be an excuse, however: we failed to focus on an individual idea rather explained what we had done.
Given that, the idea, which before the pitch I felt confident in, turned out to be trashed by the dragons. However I feel this should not be taken too seriously as their marking was somewhat erratic and highly judgmental: a team with a better idea than us scored lower. This highlights how subjective art can be: it is all down to one's individual opinion. This is also clearly present in the 'real life' television version of Dragon's Den.
I feel we did quite well under the circumstances, a lack of preparation and direction let us down a little bit. The idea was not very well presented: we should have focused on the book idea and brought everything back to it: perhaps we should have made more clear the fact that the 'erratic' imagery would all be compiled in one book.
In all, my confidence in the idea has all but gone: we might as well have chose something else: perhaps the stalker website would have been a better idea. As for my thoughts on the group, we functioned quite well on the whole but lacked a strong leader who could push the idea forward or direct our focus.
Also, I'm surprised Martin couldn't recognise bangers and mash... :)
There was a random factor to the profile of each group.
This did have an effect on the success or failure of the each Presentation.
It was interesting observing how some teams would debate and discuss ideas in Progress.
Certain individuals definitely came across in a very positive light, whereas others
had decided not to play.
Considering the short deadline – most groups did exceptionally well.
Even Smub, who had real group dynamic issues, had the guts to make a presentation.
Dragon X hadn’t read the brief some of the feedback was uneven.
Finally, well done to Dan Farrimond for his comments.
I decided to cool down before commenting or it could have been bitter...very bitter! Martin Downie I invite you to consider the following:
1)Constructive criticsm is always more valuable than personal and uninformed responses. Perhaps if you had read the briefs and understood what we had been asked to do in the first place your comments may have been more considered.
We had been given a few days to decide on the brief and collectively choose one. The pitch to the panel was not the finished art work but roughs to support the ideas. We understood that only after this stage would we be expected to go ahead and design the final outcome.
2)_Some of the slogans you criticised were actually on the brief given to us.e.g. 'together we can stop climate chaos.' You told one group to get rid of it as its not working!
3) The tone overall was very offputting for all students waiting in line for the chop. I personally was put off when presenting by catching you shaking your head and pulling faces whilst looking up at the visuals! Maybe our presentations would have been stronger and more confident overall if we felt that the judging was fair and not some experiment in humiliating students. There were definately flaws and inconsistencies in your judgement of each group. I feel that the marks given to most groups were totally inconsistent in that even if the idea wasnt strong they were still marked low for presentation.
The main point of the presentation was to sell the idea and communicate how it could be applied, not to recount the journey that the group had gone through in getting to that point. Again, you missed the point.
Yes, I know art is subjective and I am aware that we won't be wrapped up in cotton wool when we enter the industry but I left the dragons den experience feeling very disheartened along with many students. In the time we had been given and the random nature of the teams and group dynamics etc, we deserved not to be torn apart by someone who was expecting a finished presentation.
In retrospect I wish I'd made these points to you at the presentation. I think its only fair that if the panel can criticise us for a 'missed opportunity' I can echo the same sentiment back to you.
Gill Smith
Post a Comment