I don't have a subscription so can only see headlines and first para but in the text under the title:
"After childhood trauma, chronic stress and a virus that meant she could hardly move, she never thought she would be where she is now "
I now just can't help but wonder 'someone' is getting used here, or mutually used, or something 'not straightforward, even for this scenario' given these old tropes (and yes I'm almost thinking certain people involved with CFS/BPS type thing)
- particularly when you add to the suggestion that she was contacted and not the other way around, and that it was the BBC - and that for what is obviously a crappy product (and not made convincing with the supposed claims of sales and mark-up), having watched DD for many, many years I'm struggling with the credulity of the responses from the Dragons to the product.
In the old days the first discussion would be patent, and then very serious questions about its ability to be 'something a competitor could just take and manufacture 10 times more cheaply' and where is the discussion of retail etc? and just because someone got some sales they'd be asking if it was a family and friends effect. This is quite simply only a 'product' based on 'her and her story'. And the sales history isn't long enough to be about her business nous in the way some much older episodes might have been about 'sponsoring the person' because they were obviously very good at whatever they did.
UNless the programme has turned into something very different to what it was in recent years, this episode seems out of character/trend to the Dragon's Den stuff I knew in these ways. Maybe it is a change of team in charge or is it 'unique' to this episode?
The articles all talk about her being in advertising, but it seems her career was in social media - which technically is really more PR-based (although can support advertising as part of a campaign)
The rest of these bits of context slowly dribbling out, and some bits I don't know whether it has come from her or been put into her speeches or changed by journos etc but it all starts to fit together into being something a bit more 'contrived' and am wondering whether there are other 'conflicts of interest' or less specifically connections/influences perhaps even beyond just the 'business side'
I initially thought there is the issue of those who do have to change their lives due to getting the condition getting given by society very few options other than to do the immoral and boxed-in thing of pretty bigoted 'teach what you've learnt to those who are ill' encouragement and 'we'll help you' stuff (and hated that when people are going through the worst time of your life lining up 'to help' are so many, to use a horrid but accurate term, 'parasitic-seeming, but apparently well-intentioned' people offering various 'areas'). Whilst you have to be polite about them making a business out of whatever it is, because they've career-changed for their own needs and bad situation (and some it isn't even 'need' I suppose just fits better for them/is more what
they like doing as a job) to something like that
probably because society says 'we'll accept you only on the basis of you doing this, this way: this is your opportunity' effectively, what other options are not closed down rather than 'pat-on backed'?
That might be right or wrong in what happened but is a cliche for a reason.
I'm also puzzled in this at just how unusual and how 'brave' it would be for someone who genuinely had pretty recently been told they had full-on ME ie that might be lifelong, to process the implications and be sure of decisions and changing life plans around so fast that within a few years you 'out yourself' on a TV programme. When so many are careful even on social media or telling a few colleagues at work, certainly in the first years. Many are still in denial/ trying to beat the illness or stuck in processes hanging onto the old life they built for quite a long time in some parts even if they have taken it on board somewhat - it would take a huge 'push'/swept along on a tidal wave of others 'good ideas' when you are exhausted by an illness and therefore vulnerable, to be 'there' so quickly to be owning
that story to that level of detail so publicly so quickly without knowing you had huge amounts of support suggesting it wouldn't backfire etc. ?
I'm doubtful that she's worked somewhere substantially different to the norm industry or job-wise for past, current, future re: enlightenment on understanding ME and so most would feel they'd need to tiptoe and test waters on that choice because it might open for her certain options but also closes down others.
I understand she's doing this now 'having got her offer' first, but it is still pretty personal full-on stuff in relation to this topic area. And it's made me suss in how BPS-trope laden it is in background with that stuff to the point I think about timing and what might have been happening re: ME/CFS in the lee-time to June when it was filmed etc. But then I guess everyone is an individual and there will if you look across a big enough population be some who do happen to tick all of these boxes genuinely in their history etc.