Jenny was not stopped at the time by any production team.
Probably because she had not broken any specific rule of the game. That and the fact that it was fairly clear that the shopkeeper wasn't going to play ball. You don't know what action the production team would have taken if he'd agreed. They may have stopped it or they may have just reported it to Sugar. In this case they did not stop it (probably because it was well withing the rules) and Sugar made no objection.
It seems to be just a few people here who are getting all worked up about it - even though businesses copy each other's ideas all the time and the fact that they were given stock footage of a racing track indicates that they were intended to have that option available to them.
It is possible that Nick or Margaret did know at the time. Here Karen being in the store must have known.
You still don't seem to understand how 'The Apprentice' works.
Karen and Nick are NOT referees or enforcers. They are observers.
Please name me a non food article that is being sold in more than one shop in Westfield. Remember it has to be the only article they stock or almost. And exactly the same article. I dont mean a service either.
Here you go again making up your own set of rules.
As an example, there are several shops that sell nothing but watches, in one case they are within a few feet of each other.
I don't know why you can't just accept that if it was considered in any way underhand Sugar would have said something as he has done most explicitly in they past when he has found the teams ethics questionable.
Instead, with no knowledge of the relevant rules you've just made one up out of your head and are using it to bash one team. :rolleyes:
I think if you count up all the posts on all the threads about this you will find that you hold a minority view and most agree with me that it is not within the spirit of completing the task.
You may be right in theory that it is not breaking the existing rules but it is surely wrong in practice. If they wouldnt have taken 'business' away from the other team it also wouldnt be that bad. But considering they sold many more DVD's it must have come at the expense of the other team. This is sharp practice. Would you also not condone if they stood in front of the other stall with a bill board saying their identical 'goods' are cheaper? I dont see the difference.
I think if you count up all the posts on all the threads about this you will find that you hold a minority view and most agree with me that it is not within the spirit of completing the task.
I'm afraid that an argumentum ad populum isn't going to impress me.
What you or any other people here - none of whom are party to actual rules - think is immaterial. It is the people who are running the tasks and who set the rules that count and they raised no objection.
The fact that they gave the team the necessary background for the car version is pretty conclusive evidence that they were perfectly prepared for them to use that if they thought it apposite.
You may be right in theory that it is not breaking the existing rules but it is surely wrong in practice.
Well, you seem to have made up your mind that it is.
However, in reality the task was about a multitude of different activities and if one team is going to be hamstrung because they made the wrong choice early on there would have been no point ion performing the rest of the task.
The production company gave them the background for a car 'experience' and so it's apparent that they were prepared for them to use it.
But considering they sold many more DVD's it must have come at the expense of the other team.
And that is exactly what business is all about.
Getting people to buy goods or services from you rather than your competitors.
This is sharp practice.
In your mind, maybe, but the real business world considers it to be absolutely standard.
Would you also not condone if they stood in front of the other stall with a bill board saying their identical 'goods' are cheaper? I dont see the difference.
I can actually see a monumental difference.
What you seem to be advocating is an enforced monopoly where once one person has an idea it's theirs in perpetuity and no one else is allowed to compete.
You can advocate such a scheme if you wish but you are way out of kilter with the real world.
Have you heard of a thing called the 'Free Market Economy'?
That's they way the world works now and why we have Tesco, Sainsurys, Asda and Morrisons rather than just one of those charging whatever they like.
In your weird world someone would have started a supermarket and no one else would have been allowed to copy the idea and form competition. Crazy!
OK. Can you name any other task in any apprentice episode that had the teams chasing the same customers for the same product. This is not the real world as everyone knows. It is to see how well they can perform certain tasks. And selling the same product to the same customer will not prove this.Just imagine if one team has already influenced a customer to buy, which is the hard graft, then the other team just goes and 'picks' them off, offering a cheaper price would that prove their 'mettle'.
As LS himself said last week, anyone can sell goods cheaper and below the price. That is not business. The idea is to charge the highest price the market can take.
Reading most posts here, they do come mostly from regular and sensible people and I would not dismiss them so quickly. So to repeat, the idea is not to copy the real world, SW does not need this in his organisation, and is not looking for someone just to sell for cheaper. He is looking for someone who has his/her own ideas.
It's stated in the voiceover at the beginning, that both teams were allowed to choose two reels for the day - one they filmed themselves, and one they chose from the archive footage. Apollo chose a water-skiing background from the archives, and shot a car racing one themselves. Synergy chose a motorcycle race from the archives, and shot the skiing one themselves. There was no larger archive that teams were selecting videos from on the day - Synergy chose their motorcycle racing one on day 1 (Sandeesh wanted to go for an underwater scene, but the rest of the team over-ruled her). On the second day they adapted the motorcycle race background by using it with a car.
If thats the case the rules have to be changed. They have to say in advance what background they will use. and not use any other.
They did this - except they could bring two backgrounds, not one. Stuart took car racing and water skiing, Sandeesh took snow skiing and bike racing. Presumably they weren't allowed to pick the same archive background, or the same custom background. Eg they could not have both picked snow skiing because the indoor snow slope would not have accommodated them both.
I don't think it was cheating but it did show a lack of imagination from Liz
How so? Given the snow skiing wasn't working, their only option was to switch to bike racing, because at that stage they only had 2 backgrounds available. That's not lack of imagination, that's lack of options enforced by the task rules.
Reading most posts here, they do come mostly from regular and sensible people and I would not dismiss them so quickly. So to repeat, the idea is not to copy the real world,
Perhaps sensible people, but are they all actually business minded (knowing all the business rules)? Business is often not like the (rest of the) real world and people might find that the rules there are very different.
As you said, the idea is not to copy the real world (the one which most people are in, the regular and sensible ones).
Thanks Monkseal. I must say your own blog is hilarious. http://monkseal.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/the-apprentice-6-week-7/
True the backdrop if its car racing or motor cycle racing is not exactly the same. And this must be the fault of the production team to allow them such similar ones. For a kid racing against a motor cycle or a car there is not much difference. If Liz would have worked this out for herself, without the 'help' of the other team one could not really complain. Although it wouldnt be a real task, just to see who can make it cheaper.
But since she couldnt work it out for herself and needed the other teams 'help' and only succeeded in selling more because she undercut them, even if she would have won the task, I wouldnt think it ethical that one of the other team should be fired even Stuart!
The production team ought to be fired instead!
OK. Can you name any other task in any apprentice episode that had the teams chasing the same customers for the same product. This is not the real world as everyone knows. It is to see how well they can perform certain tasks. And selling the same product to the same customer will not prove this.Just imagine if one team has already influenced a customer to buy, which is the hard graft, then the other team just goes and 'picks' them off, offering a cheaper price would that prove their 'mettle'.
As LS himself said last week, anyone can sell goods cheaper and below the price. That is not business. The idea is to charge the highest price the market can take.
Reading most posts here, they do come mostly from regular and sensible people and I would not dismiss them so quickly. So to repeat, the idea is not to copy the real world, SW does not need this in his organisation, and is not looking for someone just to sell for cheaper. He is looking for someone who has his/her own ideas.
Ok, well here in Dunstable, we have three mobile phone shops next to each other, with a further two just around the corner. In that short road were two shoe shops opposite each other.From Clinton Cards you could see the other card shop window. From Boots you can see Superdrug. By see I mean throw a stone and hit. Other examples, Hatton Gardens (diamonds), Soho (sex), Saville Row (suits), Jermyn Street (shirts & menswear) and every shopping centre the same names in clothes. In practice opening up near the opposition means you have automatic access to their customers. They have the same to yours of course, but you both benefit as customers who are in a buying mood know where is the best place to start looking.
As for the Apprentice:
Series 1 Task 1 Selling flowers at the same market
Task 8 sell homemade food at the same farmers' market.
Series 2 Task 1 Fruit & veg at Hackney market
Task 12 they went after exactly the same customers on occassion.
Series 3 Task 1 Sell coffee in Islington
Task 4 make at sell sweets at London Zoo (& pull a fast one on parents if you are Kristina)
Series 4 Task 8 sell wedding dresses at the NEC Bride Show (whatever it was) Slight difference but very same customers.
Actually most of Sugar's 80's products were where he copied an idea from others but designed and so changed it to be a lot cheaper and so reach new customers. Where they came up with totally new ideas for products (so no existing market) is where they often came unstuck. Facial thing (Tim Campbell) and the emailer are the two best examples.
Oh just remembered. When I lived nr Watford there was a large Asda's. After a few years Sainsburys built a supermarket on the opposite side of the road. Pretty much kills the smaller shops that.
On that account task 5 from this series also applies.
And next week will also see the candidates try to persuade the same sort of clients (for the same kind of product).
Yep, pretty much. There are lots of examples where the same customers are targetted with slightly different things. That is what happens all the time in the real world (not just cos it's easier for filming). The slight differences in targetting, approach and price/costs are, as in the real world the deciders of success.
"Actually most of Sugar's 80's products were where he copied an idea from others but designed and so changed it to be a lot cheaper and so reach new customers. Where they came up with totally new ideas for products (so no existing market) is where they often came unstuck. Facial thing (Tim Campbell) and the emailer are the two best examples"
There is nothing wrong copying an idea, and making a new cheaper design. Here we are talking about the same product. But you all miss my point. If its right or wrong is not the criteria here. The question is, is that what LS is looking for and what the series is able to provide for him. Would you take an apprentice who can only copy someone else's idea and pay him/her 100 grand?
Those large shops you mention usually have their 'own label' products and cant be compared to a small retailer selling someone else's products.
The larger shops usually pay very little rent, and are used by the shopping malls to draw the customers. Their main money is made from the smaller shops who 'dot' the malls. They have a fixed amount of which shops can sell what. They are also interested in making sure they 'survive'. At the moment the central London arcades are emptying out.
In the present series the bangers and cakes were not sold in the same streets to the same customers. And also they were not the same product.
It was a different product: racing cars versus racing bikes. Both were chosen the previous day.
You still seem to have missed the basics of what happened.
But you all miss my point. If its right or wrong is not the criteria here. The question is, is that what LS is looking for and what the series is able to provide for him. Would you take an apprentice who can only copy someone else's idea and pay him/her 100 grand?
The ideas would have come from a list of options they were given on the first day. Copying isn't an issue.
What Lord Sugar often looks for is someone who can detect when a plan is broken, and then fix it so it works. That's what Liz did. (It's also what she did in the fashion task, when she negotiated a last-minute 20% discount with the designers.) He was more critical of Sandeesh and Jamie, because although they realised they had a problem, their fix was to reduce the price. It seemed to me he thought they should have switched to their second backdrop first, and then only reduced the price if that hadn't worked.
He didn't have a problem with them switching to their second backdrop. It was the right thing to do - virtually the only thing to do, at that point.
To Brangdon
My question hasnt yet been answered.
If Liz would have won the task (after what I and others have called her cheating) would you have been happy to see one of the other team go. Even Stuart?
And can you tell me the difference to a kid, to race against a bike or a car. You consider them different products, I wonder what others think?
I think LS was wrong about their price reduction. The other team at a higher price sold far fewer DVDs all day and had many which were not collected. I think their price was exactly right but too late in the day.
LS in his own business has never been much good at pricing. He was lucky that he always had good products at least at the beginning. His wordprocesser, 444, 644 and then his cheap copy of the IBM.
His shares where he always held a majority stake, he went public, then private and public and private again each time fooling the shareholders. Never buy shares in a company controlled by one man.
To Brangdon
My question hasnt yet been answered.
If Liz would have won the task (after what I and others have called her cheating) would you have been happy to see one of the other team go. Even Stuart?
Stuart or Laura, yes. I'd keep Sandeesh over both of those. She may be inexperienced but she's not out and out delusional. Or happy to pull fast ones on customers.
Liz didn't cheat as you keep putting it. I strongly suspect one of the production team hinted 'go and look at the others' though. But anyway, spying on the competition and then matching prices or being a little cheaper is what supermarkets and large chains employ teams to do. Just about every retailer does it. If they are savvy enough that is.
Many of the questions you have asked have been answered.
If Liz would have won the task (after what I and others have called her cheating) would you have been happy to see one of the other team go. Even Stuart?
Yes. Especially Stuart, as I think he is out of his depth and won't survive long. Laura is another one who ought to have been fired before Sandeesh.
And can you tell me the difference to a kid, to race against a bike or a car. You consider them different products, I wonder what others think?
According to the task rules, they were different. Otherwise the choice would (probably) have been disallowed on the first day, when the choice was made. It wouldn't have been left until the second day.
I think LS was wrong about their price reduction.
You are entitled to your opinion. Alas, this isn't the kind of show where you can phone in and vote.
Comments
It seems to be just a few people here who are getting all worked up about it - even though businesses copy each other's ideas all the time and the fact that they were given stock footage of a racing track indicates that they were intended to have that option available to them.
You still don't seem to understand how 'The Apprentice' works.
Karen and Nick are NOT referees or enforcers. They are observers.
Here you go again making up your own set of rules.
As an example, there are several shops that sell nothing but watches, in one case they are within a few feet of each other.
I don't know why you can't just accept that if it was considered in any way underhand Sugar would have said something as he has done most explicitly in they past when he has found the teams ethics questionable.
Instead, with no knowledge of the relevant rules you've just made one up out of your head and are using it to bash one team. :rolleyes:
You may be right in theory that it is not breaking the existing rules but it is surely wrong in practice. If they wouldnt have taken 'business' away from the other team it also wouldnt be that bad. But considering they sold many more DVD's it must have come at the expense of the other team. This is sharp practice. Would you also not condone if they stood in front of the other stall with a bill board saying their identical 'goods' are cheaper? I dont see the difference.
I'm afraid that an argumentum ad populum isn't going to impress me.
What you or any other people here - none of whom are party to actual rules - think is immaterial. It is the people who are running the tasks and who set the rules that count and they raised no objection.
The fact that they gave the team the necessary background for the car version is pretty conclusive evidence that they were perfectly prepared for them to use that if they thought it apposite.
Well, you seem to have made up your mind that it is.
However, in reality the task was about a multitude of different activities and if one team is going to be hamstrung because they made the wrong choice early on there would have been no point ion performing the rest of the task.
The production company gave them the background for a car 'experience' and so it's apparent that they were prepared for them to use it.
And that is exactly what business is all about.
Getting people to buy goods or services from you rather than your competitors.
In your mind, maybe, but the real business world considers it to be absolutely standard.
I can actually see a monumental difference.
What you seem to be advocating is an enforced monopoly where once one person has an idea it's theirs in perpetuity and no one else is allowed to compete.
You can advocate such a scheme if you wish but you are way out of kilter with the real world.
Have you heard of a thing called the 'Free Market Economy'?
That's they way the world works now and why we have Tesco, Sainsurys, Asda and Morrisons rather than just one of those charging whatever they like.
In your weird world someone would have started a supermarket and no one else would have been allowed to copy the idea and form competition. Crazy!
As LS himself said last week, anyone can sell goods cheaper and below the price. That is not business. The idea is to charge the highest price the market can take.
Reading most posts here, they do come mostly from regular and sensible people and I would not dismiss them so quickly. So to repeat, the idea is not to copy the real world, SW does not need this in his organisation, and is not looking for someone just to sell for cheaper. He is looking for someone who has his/her own ideas.
They didn't have the same product. One had car racing, one had bike racing.
How so? Given the snow skiing wasn't working, their only option was to switch to bike racing, because at that stage they only had 2 backgrounds available. That's not lack of imagination, that's lack of options enforced by the task rules.
This series?
- Task 1
- Task 3
But no doubt these don´t count for some reason or other :rolleyes:
Perhaps sensible people, but are they all actually business minded (knowing all the business rules)? Business is often not like the (rest of the) real world and people might find that the rules there are very different.
As you said, the idea is not to copy the real world (the one which most people are in, the regular and sensible ones).
True the backdrop if its car racing or motor cycle racing is not exactly the same. And this must be the fault of the production team to allow them such similar ones. For a kid racing against a motor cycle or a car there is not much difference. If Liz would have worked this out for herself, without the 'help' of the other team one could not really complain. Although it wouldnt be a real task, just to see who can make it cheaper.
But since she couldnt work it out for herself and needed the other teams 'help' and only succeeded in selling more because she undercut them, even if she would have won the task, I wouldnt think it ethical that one of the other team should be fired even Stuart!
The production team ought to be fired instead!
Ok, well here in Dunstable, we have three mobile phone shops next to each other, with a further two just around the corner. In that short road were two shoe shops opposite each other.From Clinton Cards you could see the other card shop window. From Boots you can see Superdrug. By see I mean throw a stone and hit. Other examples, Hatton Gardens (diamonds), Soho (sex), Saville Row (suits), Jermyn Street (shirts & menswear) and every shopping centre the same names in clothes. In practice opening up near the opposition means you have automatic access to their customers. They have the same to yours of course, but you both benefit as customers who are in a buying mood know where is the best place to start looking.
As for the Apprentice:
Series 1 Task 1 Selling flowers at the same market
Task 8 sell homemade food at the same farmers' market.
Series 2 Task 1 Fruit & veg at Hackney market
Task 12 they went after exactly the same customers on occassion.
Series 3 Task 1 Sell coffee in Islington
Task 4 make at sell sweets at London Zoo (& pull a fast one on parents if you are Kristina)
Series 4 Task 8 sell wedding dresses at the NEC Bride Show (whatever it was) Slight difference but very same customers.
Actually most of Sugar's 80's products were where he copied an idea from others but designed and so changed it to be a lot cheaper and so reach new customers. Where they came up with totally new ideas for products (so no existing market) is where they often came unstuck. Facial thing (Tim Campbell) and the emailer are the two best examples.
Oh just remembered. When I lived nr Watford there was a large Asda's. After a few years Sainsburys built a supermarket on the opposite side of the road. Pretty much kills the smaller shops that.
On that account task 5 from this series also applies.
And next week will also see the candidates try to persuade the same sort of clients (for the same kind of product).
Yep, pretty much. There are lots of examples where the same customers are targetted with slightly different things. That is what happens all the time in the real world (not just cos it's easier for filming). The slight differences in targetting, approach and price/costs are, as in the real world the deciders of success.
There is nothing wrong copying an idea, and making a new cheaper design. Here we are talking about the same product. But you all miss my point. If its right or wrong is not the criteria here. The question is, is that what LS is looking for and what the series is able to provide for him. Would you take an apprentice who can only copy someone else's idea and pay him/her 100 grand?
Those large shops you mention usually have their 'own label' products and cant be compared to a small retailer selling someone else's products.
The larger shops usually pay very little rent, and are used by the shopping malls to draw the customers. Their main money is made from the smaller shops who 'dot' the malls. They have a fixed amount of which shops can sell what. They are also interested in making sure they 'survive'. At the moment the central London arcades are emptying out.
In the present series the bangers and cakes were not sold in the same streets to the same customers. And also they were not the same product.
You still seem to have missed the basics of what happened.
The ideas would have come from a list of options they were given on the first day. Copying isn't an issue.
What Lord Sugar often looks for is someone who can detect when a plan is broken, and then fix it so it works. That's what Liz did. (It's also what she did in the fashion task, when she negotiated a last-minute 20% discount with the designers.) He was more critical of Sandeesh and Jamie, because although they realised they had a problem, their fix was to reduce the price. It seemed to me he thought they should have switched to their second backdrop first, and then only reduced the price if that hadn't worked.
He didn't have a problem with them switching to their second backdrop. It was the right thing to do - virtually the only thing to do, at that point.
My question hasnt yet been answered.
If Liz would have won the task (after what I and others have called her cheating) would you have been happy to see one of the other team go. Even Stuart?
And can you tell me the difference to a kid, to race against a bike or a car. You consider them different products, I wonder what others think?
I think LS was wrong about their price reduction. The other team at a higher price sold far fewer DVDs all day and had many which were not collected. I think their price was exactly right but too late in the day.
LS in his own business has never been much good at pricing. He was lucky that he always had good products at least at the beginning. His wordprocesser, 444, 644 and then his cheap copy of the IBM.
His shares where he always held a majority stake, he went public, then private and public and private again each time fooling the shareholders. Never buy shares in a company controlled by one man.
Stuart or Laura, yes. I'd keep Sandeesh over both of those. She may be inexperienced but she's not out and out delusional. Or happy to pull fast ones on customers.
Liz didn't cheat as you keep putting it. I strongly suspect one of the production team hinted 'go and look at the others' though. But anyway, spying on the competition and then matching prices or being a little cheaper is what supermarkets and large chains employ teams to do. Just about every retailer does it. If they are savvy enough that is.
Yes. Especially Stuart, as I think he is out of his depth and won't survive long. Laura is another one who ought to have been fired before Sandeesh.
According to the task rules, they were different. Otherwise the choice would (probably) have been disallowed on the first day, when the choice was made. It wouldn't have been left until the second day.
You are entitled to your opinion. Alas, this isn't the kind of show where you can phone in and vote.