|
||||||||
Why did neither team understand the task? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
At first I wondered this too. Just going based on what Sir Alan SAID, I can see how easy it would be to misconstrue this task as "come back with the most money".
But it WAS made clear later than they got a brief. And I have NO doubt that brief was specific. So... they screwed up. And deserved to be chewed out. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,239
|
Quote:
Wth respect, that makes no sense. Had a team not sold anything it would have shown them to be incapable of selling or having no desire to sell anything (irrespective of how much each item was worth).
The show is all about selling so even if there were some advantage in not selling anything, you could hardly go into the boardroom and say: "We decided not to sell anything because we knew the other team would make a loss when selling their items. By not selling anything this gives us an advantage." Sugar would laugh at you and then fire you. Not really the way to win the show, is it? Yes, in this instance, a team could have gone to the pub, let the other team implode and won by default but there is no way any intelligent team leader would have relied on that even had they understood the task properly. Nobody could or should have relied on the other team making a loss and any team leader doing so (or any team member going along with sucha strategy unquestioningly) would have their cards marked for the future. They wouldn't have been fired on this task going by the rules but they'd have had to seriously impress in later weeks to even think about surviving any future boardroom. Anyone who knows the parable of the talents may see some parallel here... |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
Although it's tempting to suppose the twist is that some items are worth more than they seem, he may also have been hinting that they should read the rules carefully.
Especially after tha shopping debacle last year. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,230
|
Quote:
Yes, in this instance, a team could have gone to the pub, let the other team implode and won by default but there is no way any intelligent team leader would have relied on that even had they understood the task properly. Nobody could or should have relied on the other team making a loss and any team leader doing so (or any team member going along with sucha strategy unquestioningly) would have their cards marked for the future. They wouldn't have been fired on this task going by the rules but they'd have had to seriously impress in later weeks to even think about surviving any future boardroom. Anyone who knows the parable of the talents may see some parallel here...
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...217&highlight= Any team [leader] intelligent enough to work out how the task worked would have seen that selling nothing would have a good chance of winning given the difficulty of selling things for their true value. However, that doesn't mean that they would then choose to sit in the pub, as a better strategy would be to go out and try and sell things for more than their value. As they might get lucky and show fighting spirit at the same time - unambiguously a better strategy. But I think it's still worthy of discussing that sitting in the pub doing nothing would have won this task. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 647
|
I understood the task was to try to sell everything, but to make sure that they sold everything for the highest price they could get, hence making sure they valued all the most valuable items, correctly. I did think it was a selling task too, and thought the winners would be those who brought home the highest amount of money. IF the rules of how the task would be won were in the dossier they were given, then no excuses - but how would we know this??
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
But I think it's still worthy of discussing that sitting in the pub doing nothing would have won this task.
It's all very well to say that they should have read the brief more carefully (although we haven't actually seen that brief so we can't even be certain that it made the rules clear), but they obviously didn't and thus the task was undertaken in entirely the wrong way. If the teams had understood it would have been a far better test of intelligence and analytical thinking than what we got. Of course, I have a definite suspicion that the teams were intended to misunderstand the task so that the audience could laugh at their foul ups. I suspect the producers thought that would be more entertaining than the rather demanding job of understanding a strategy for winning the intended task (an optimal strategy for which is all but impossible given the time constraints and formatting rules). |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,991
|
Quote:
I think people are making the point that either team could have done that and won. That's certainly what I was thinking way back when I posted this thread:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...217&highlight= Any team [leader] intelligent enough to work out how the task worked would have seen that selling nothing would have a good chance of winning given the difficulty of selling things for their true value. However, that doesn't mean that they would then choose to sit in the pub, as a better strategy would be to go out and try and sell things for more than their value. As they might get lucky and show fighting spirit at the same time - unambiguously a better strategy. But I think it's still worthy of discussing that sitting in the pub doing nothing would have won this task. The James Bond book for example was a winner. Probably easy to sell, and to sell for a profit. If they had identified the shoes, probably as well, as no doubt you could easily find some vintage clothing shop. The rug was a difficult one though, i would have left that unsold. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
The James Bond book for example was a winner. Probably easy to sell, and to sell for a profit. If they had identified the shoes, probably as well, as no doubt you could easily find some vintage clothing shop.
The only sensible strategy for this task was to get everything valued and then not sell anything for less than the value, even if that meant you sold nothing at all, as long as you spent the day trying. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,230
|
Quote:
The rug was a difficult one though, i would have left that unsold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,230
|
Quote:
The only sensible strategy for this task was to get everything valued and then not sell anything for less than the value, even if that meant you sold nothing at all, as long as you spent the day trying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,991
|
Quote:
That depends on how they were valued by SAS, when we saw the book being sold the owner of the shop said something like, I'll give you £80 and sell it for £160, so were the items valued at retail price in which case it was almost impossible to make a profit, or trade price, or some arbitrary price.
The only sensible strategy for this task was to get everything valued and then not sell anything for less than the value, even if that meant you sold nothing at all, as long as you spent the day trying. If you were just led into a room with 10 items, and asked 'which can you sell at a profit', it would be extremely difficult, becuase you have no idea of costs. The book could have been brought for £20-£30, or £80-$100.... I think it was a poorly designed task, as it was strutured around having poor no/information. Of course thats dependant on what the written briefs they were given contained. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 14,231
|
Quote:
I thought the task was quite clear and was amazed to see them selling stuff below value (especially where they had valued the items). Sir Alan even said it's not about selling all your items, it's about getting good money for those you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Filmer Hole.
Posts: 6,449
|
Quote:
Of course, we haven't seen the dossier that was provided to the teams with rules etc, so we don't know how detailed that was or what they missed.
SAS did keep stressing that it was about the value of the items, and not just selling them. However, the bit I thought was unfair, and the part that seemed to take everyone by surprise was the way the result was calculated. (ie profit made less the difference between what they could have made). They would have been better off not selling some of the items, and didn't seem to grasp this at all - wildly trying to sell everything at any price. Whether that was a misunderstanding of the rules or something that was not explained to them, I don't know. In previous series, to return with items unsold has always resulted in ridicule from SAS and hefty fines, so I can understand why they were trying to avoid that. It definitely seemed as though they were not aware of the scoring system. But I suspect they may not have been told. Ben was right; it was a silly task. oh how my finger almost went to type "C" as Debra flashed through my brain while typing the programme above! |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 11,478
|
Quote:
Which is why it was a poor task. It would all depend on what the 'cost' of the items was, which was (presumably) unknown.
If you were just led into a room with 10 items, and asked 'which can you sell at a profit', it would be extremely difficult, becuase you have no idea of costs. The book could have been brought for £20-£30, or £80-$100.... I think it was a poorly designed task, as it was strutured around having poor no/information. Of course thats dependant on what the written briefs they were given contained. But the teams failed to do the first half of the task and so had no idea of what the sell for in the second... |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,744
|
Quote:
Which is why it was a poor task. It would all depend on what the 'cost' of the items was, which was (presumably) unknown.
If you were just led into a room with 10 items, and asked 'which can you sell at a profit', it would be extremely difficult, becuase you have no idea of costs. The book could have been brought for £20-£30, or £80-$100.... I think it was a poorly designed task, as it was strutured around having poor no/information. Of course thats dependant on what the written briefs they were given contained. It was a very well deisgned task contructed to test them and both teams totally failed Yes they were not given the value of the items. Establishing the value was a key part of the tasks and that was clear in the brief they were given. Having the value of the items also gives you where the potential market is. Both teams had no idea of the value so just hawked them around street markets. An obvious strategy would be to get the goods valued by an auction house. That would tell you what items had real value. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5,415
|
This was perhaps the only task in the history of the Apprentice where one team could have won by not selling a single thing.
By not selling a single item, the team would have incurred zero losses and still retained whatever assets they had at the start, and would therefore have won. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:28.


