Are they not allowed to use Google?
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d110db7a7ce51e94833372a4306c6206.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 1,759 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Was it really necessary to phone people up to find out what the objects were, when a simple internet search would tell them all they needed to know? And Jamie going all the way to the wrong place, without a clue what the item was, seems a bit 
In fact most of the episodes seem to have this problem, they always seem to be on their phones, but never using the internet for research
In fact most of the episodes seem to have this problem, they always seem to be on their phones, but never using the internet for research
0
Comments
I guess it would make it too easy otherwise
I'd love to see how well he'd at these daft tasks.
It wouldn't have been much of a challenge if they could have compared prices and found the nearest location in minutes on the internet.
But the task isn't possible to do properly without. His Lordship can phone around for his buys because he knows the suppliers and who is cheap and what the costs and last deal costs were. The apprentices don't have that knowledge and they don't have time to find multiple sellers and shop around or any means of telling on the phone who will sell lowest. They don't even know whats a high price until someone honest, and not interested in selling to them , tells them what a lower one might be.
Its a case of a task thats got multiple layers added to it until it implodes . Finding the items and prices is too easy online but that would have only tested research skills, organisational skills and some bargaining ones on the margin. Lord Sugar wanted something harder so there's no use of the computer allowed. At that point though the task becomes gone random - because it depends on who picks what number and who talks to whom. He then picks unfamilar objects to make it even harder - but that just stops them using general knowledge or common sense to judge a fair price target.
Its a classic case of adding difficulty to the point that the task can't actually measure much at all beyond who made a poor choice of supplier. Joanna does better than the boys when she has the right buyer but the boys do better when they find someone they can browbeat - reverse the phone numbers they followed up and what happens? The girls also find the items the boys can't find - but pay more than they should - but who knows what the boys would have paid if they had found anything to follow up?
And then to top it all he sacks Laura who spotted that going to restaurants for truffles might be too costly and came up with the right idea and keeps Stella who was the one who made the most obvious avoidable mistake picking where to go and who ignored both what Laura told her and the need to check with Liz .
I too cannot see how any modern approach to business can be achieved without using the 'net, but I suppose it bigs up 'Lord' Alan and his oft-repeated rubbish about selling TV aeriels door-to-door.
Cockney barrer boy? More like being up Murdoch's arse.
Another excellent analysis.
I think the problem with this programme is that what you would need to do to properly test the candidates is to set up scenarios so that both teams have the same task and then judge their performance. (In the way the advertising tasks work).
The problem with that approach is that for most task types it doesn't make good TV and so we end up with a random result with Sugar berating one team for a decision that anyone with an ounce of sense knows he might just as well have made himself.
This is particularly noticeable in selling tasks where the teams have the option of selling a few very high priced items or a lot of lower priced ones.
The result will be pretty much random because, effectively, the sample size is too small to test what they are trying to test but, whichever team wins, Sugar will make out to the losers that he finds it obvious that their strategy is flawed.
Of course, most people fall for this hook, line, and sinker.
I was thinking about a google search too, it seemed like the most obvious thing to do.
One consequence of the above is that a person who performs badly on a task might not get punished for it until a later one. I thought it was pretty clear here that Laura was being fired, and Stella kept, for their past performance, not for what happened on this task.
I think you may be wrong there. All the voiceover said was something to the effect that all they HAVE is phones and a pile of biz directories. I didn't hear any clear instruction not to use the internet, so unless they were told not to, I support the very simple plan of making friends with Google. Seems totally stupid and timewasting otherwise. I mean, how did LS think that someone in each team would know what the "Blue book" was? Personally, from watching Judge Judy (:eek:) I was going along the lines of the "Blue book" that lists the current prices of cars in the US!
EDIT: Just saw the post above! Darn! Well, still seems asking a lot, considering how many "Blue books" there are. (Wasn't that also the official USAF investigation into UFOs?)
No.
It's a rubbish task because the restrictions placed on the candidates turn it into a random charade.
True it showed that if you are prepared to accept someone lying through their teeth then Chris was a good haggler but buying one off items is not a typical business task and lying to the people you deal with is very definitely not good business practice.
In one respect it was a good task. It provided entertainment for idiots who don't care about principles such as honesty and wave aside objections concerning dishonesty with such responses as 'well, it worked' or 'well, they won't have to deal with that person again'.
What the task didn't even attempt to show was who would have been the best negotiator in a more normal business situation where you would typically be discussing such things as quantity discounts, credit, and delivery schedules.
Yes, you can defend the task if you just treat the whole process as a nothing more than a rather silly game but as a test of usable, real life, business skills it was utter rubbish.
And, IIRC, it's an optical media standard as well.
ETA Yup, it's the multisession CD standard.
I totally agree, except that Stella admited her mistake, and Laura had been weak in the show up until that point, and made the mistake of negotiating up from £200.