Remember when a reference was made to Lorraine and Mona selling a lot of soap and noorul selling nothing

No, but I'll take your word for it and withdraw my claim that she can't sell with my apologies.

That still leaves her poor presentation in the fitness task as a screw-up though, so I stand by my contention that every candidate has screwed up at least once.

Well as an operations director myself and successful in recruitment for the last 30 years I would strongly disagree with your comments, I may not recruit into sales however the basic person skills needed can be compared quite easily across a large number of roles.

First of all don't take these tasks too seriously because I believe the final 3 or 4 are already known and I believe that there is already a timetable prepared to determine which one of 2 or 3 will go out each week. Sometimes the decision to fire someone is based around the task but in most instances if the "chosen one" is not culpable on the particular task at hand then Sir Alan just chooses him/her for some random other reason.

This last weeks task was a prime example, first of all it was a ridiculous brief that they were given and should have been based on profit rather than sales, at no point was profit mentioned so from what we saw Debra could have sold the rocking horse at a loss and won the task based on the highest sales figure, then again if that had happened would the rules have changed??????????

James was unlucky last week because I think he did an excellent job, he identified the number of buggys on the market and the average selling price and determined that along with the price and the competition the folding buggy was a no go , he identified the birthing pool as a niche market and negotiated the price down accordingly - totally 100% spot on, as a director I could not have faulted him. He then listened (as good managers need to do) to his two "high flyers" Debra and Ben who told him that there was nothing else worth even considering apart from the rocking horse, on that basis he had no choice but to go along with it. The only mistake that James maybe made was not checking if they had got the best discount possible for the horses but if you have so called good people working with you then it should not be neccesary to check such a fundamentally basic detail

Now going to the other team they were purely impulse choices with no background research regarding competition.

This is where I come back to the point that these tasks are a bit of a farce and it is quite possible that spoof customers are sent to buy product to enable a particular team to win.
Let's face it, the flagship product of Lorraine was being sold on the very next stand for £35 cheaper, knowing the current economic climate nobody at these shows would jump in and buy the first thing they saw without looking all around, let alone looking on the next stand. It portrayed those buyers as incompetent idiots.
In reality the fact that Lorraines team sold anything more than a few of those silly helmets was down to either good luck or a bit of creativity from the apprentice backroom staff, there was no good business sense or fundamental market research skills shown in that team.

Now to Howard , he volunteered for PM in week 1 and has mostly stayed under the radar since, the other week that he wanted to be PM he was overpowered by Debra which showed a kind of personality weakness.

On the task where he was PM he did not particularly do a good job, he told the sub team only to offer to wash the cars on the outside!!!!
Which valet company would pay you to wash the outside and need to employ someone else to do the inside?
Totally ridiculous, and it was Philip who took on the whole task and won the contract for doing inside and out. When Howard arrived rather that being helpful he said
"At what point was the decision taken to do the inside as well ?"
I remember his words very clearly , a total cop out, and poor management to bring this up during the task, he should have asked this question afterwards.

For me the top 3 in no particular order are

James - He is shrewd, approachable, honest and a good team player with bags of potential to be developed and moulded.

Yasmina - Again as per James, with maybe a little bit better leadership quality, can be a little abrasive but not too much.

Kate - Again same reasons as James, she is very likeable and is as comfortable taking orders as she is making decisions. A real candidate.


The bottom 3 in this order (Best First)


Howard - is one of those slimy characters that tries to stay under the radar and just do enough, like Alex last year, is the type of person who is wise after the event with no real creative flair. Would be a typical "brown nose" within an organization.

Lorraine - Totally unemployable as a team member, likes to see others fail to make herself look better, lucky to still be there.

Debra - Has not demonstrated any business skills whatsoever to me, she is rude and aggressive to colleagues and customers alike, and is only there for the simple reason that the viewingpublic like to see a Mr or Mrs Nasty go through, it keeps the rating up.

Lets see how accurate my predictions are.

When people make comments it would be good if they good give valid business facts to back them up rather than "Howard did well and won the first task"

But as you have pointed out, the whole programme is really nothing more than a farce.

We don't know the rules for each task so we often don't know if the candidates would actually be allowed to do the things we think of as 'obvious'.

In your examples above, would James have been allowed to check that the sub-team got the best discount? Was Lorraine actually able to go round the site and see what was available on other stands and how much it sold for - and, crucially, if she was, was that before or after she knew what the choice of goods were available for them to select.

This information is vital before an accurate assesment can be made of a candidate's performance.

We know for a fact that the producers are not above making up the rules as they go along or blatantly cheating on screen. (Check the time it took to get the last contract on the car task last series. They must have been using London Underground minutes!)

It also seems very likely that candidates are manipulated to keep repeating certain things (Alex:24, Ben:Sandhurst, Lorraine:Instinct) and they are certainly lead by the questioner to criticise other candidates, the resulting clips then being used to make certain candidates seem particularly negative.

But we know that James was allowed to check that his subteam got the best discount because Margaret mentioned in the boardroom to SAS that it was a mistake he didn't.

We also know that Lorraine could have asked about the exclusivity of the product when she visited the designer. Kate criticised her for it and SAS asked her explicitly in the boardroom and Lorraine admitted that she should have.

Generally in the Apprentice, they don't "lie" about the rules. They can mislead the viewer, hide some details, etc. In the boardroom, SAS can't explicilty lie saying that they should have done something if they couldn't do it because of the rules. However, I always give the candidates the benefit of the doubt if they behave idiotically and SAS doesn't question them about their actions in the boadroom. It is then when I know that there is a rule that forced them to behave in a certain way.


The candidates can be manipulated to repeat certain things. Alex last year said that he was asked about his and was shown was part of the interviews. Repeating Ben's interview and what he said about Sandhurst is clearly another manipulation. However, no one forced him to to bring it up in the boadroom and no one asked him to mention it to Philip.

Similarly, Lorraine didn't bring up her "instinct" in an interview to the camera. She mentioned it in the boaroom, to Philip many times (as he was clearly annoyed), even last week in the phone to Kate and Howard. I can't see how she was manipulated into repeating it in those situations.

Apprentice x-candidates (e.g. Karen Bremner, Simon Smith, Raef, Lee, Claire, Lucinda) said that the edited show is generally a fair representation of how they were in the show. Even those who didn't like how they portrayed (Helene from last series, Lorraine) never said that the edit was unfair to them. The common complain is that the tough conditions and the gruelling tasks bring out the worst in them.

I swear if Debra were appointed as my line or team manager, I'd be asking for a transfer very quickly. I used to work for someone who was just as bad in a different way and no stayed in her department for very long. She had the top management completely fooled, though, which is why they didn't learn and fire her.

I didn't have a problem with that. I don't think it was the very next stand, although it was close. It was on a stand that had a great many other push-chairs, and could easily be overlooked by customers and not especially pushed by the sellers. Marketing does make a difference and you can sell stuff under those conditions, and I have no trouble believing they did so.

It wouldn't be worth the risk for production to fake it. I reckon Sir Alan rearranged the teams to put Lorraine on one and Ben on the other, so he always had someone to fire he wouldn't miss, if no-one else messed up badly. So they wouldn't care who won.


I think that's a consequence of the editing. He's generally been seen making sensible comments and help things go smoothly. He also been seen reprimanding Lorraine, Philip and Ben than I can think of, which to me shows he's not afraid to stick his head above the parapet.


Well, no. They were both on the same team so it showed he put the good of the team ahead of his personal advantage. We don't know how long he argued for, because it was surely cut down for the edit, but they have limited time and he's just too sensible to waste half the task arguing about who is going to be team leader.

Assuming you are second guessing AS correctly.

It may have been Ben and Howard he had in his sights.


Another nice piece of spinning.

Someone appears not to fight his corner (something AS is known to frown upon) so let's spin it as 'letting it go for the benefit of the team'. Neat.

Yes, I nearly wrote "Howard" as a sop to sinbad22uk, who apparently doesn't like him. I didn't because it upset the flow of my post. It doesn't affect my point. They don't care which team won.

I agree entirely with your logic surrounding Empire. But not with Impulse. They did show research but took what I would refer to a more risk averse approach. They identified the birthing pool as a niche market of 2% and compared it to a buggy (a necessity for all mums, with a larger target market and at over £40-£50 more revenue per item. I think the logic was as a small team, they would have an impulse buy to give a little lift but concentrate efforts on the pushchair. I doubt the shoes or the other item would have provided high revenue either. And lets face it; the shoes would definately have been a very niche market and there were a lot more points that could be raised and used to sell the helmets. Therefore, you have a rocking horse which is something that would be a rare purchase, especially in an economic downturn and at such a high price. You realy are holding out for luck and really would need to concentrate efforts to sell, that take away from your other items. Your next two items with high selling prices are the birthing pool and buggy. Very similar, but one more of a niche product and a 2& target market. Resources would have had to have been split and both teams would not have been able to sell it as exclusivity was guaranteed wasn't it? The buggy was the safest option. Even then , they were lucky to get people to buy before wandering around as they did not have exclusivity. i get the feeling based on the bbc clip of Kate talking to Lorraine and then Howard about her concerns about the rival stall that maybe their sales pitch that we didn't see tried to encourage people to buy there and then. As Kate said; it doesn't matter how good a sales person you are. If the buggy was cheaper, then they were screwed. Which they were in the afternoon it seemed from the show. Although it could be that the stall lowered their prices in the afternoon after seeing Ignite sell more because of the camera crew or something. They certainly thought about a strategy; but it differed from Empire's as the team, as candidate, seem more risk averse.

I agree with your comments surrounding Howard. I also noticed his comment to Kate in a whisper last week about using the fact Lorraine didn't check exclusivity in the boardroom.

I like James, but disagree that he is one of the top candidates. Highly personable doesn't make you a top player in business. I don't think he is a strong enough personality to deal with the tougher, more difficult people in business like Debra. He also doesn't have strong leadership skills. Even with the fitness product; he gave his team (mainly Ben) too much leeway and they went totally away from instructions to keep it simple. He should have been more involved in the design. Also since Kate was a fitness-type woman and that was the market they were targetting; she really should have been in the design team as well as she would be a typical person buying the item. He doesn't always delegate well. He also fumbles a little under pressure which you cannot do in a blue chip organisation. He needs to have more confidence in his opinions and directions as well as more control over his team. His team also recognise his fumbling and lack of confidence, which can instill a lack of confidence in him as well from them.

Yasmina - I agree with your points.

Kate - I agree there, but put her above James imo. I like her leadership style in the way she motivates people and she would do well in a blue chip organisation.

Lorraine - I agree to a degree. But Ben summed it up perfectly. It seems more to me that she has poor communication skills. She seems more comfortable as a leader where she knows her choices, if others disagree, could be pushed through. But put her underneath someone else who doesn't share her view or direction; she struggles to articulate her views without antagonising. In a large organisation; I could see her upsetting a lot of people and alienating a lot of people. I also think she isn't a strong pitcher and doesn't convey that level of confidence or clear message that someone like Kate does when pitching. She does have her positives, but I don't think she's right for a senior position in a blue chip organisation over other candidates in the show.

Debra - I disagree she has no good points. I know people like Debra in my organisation. High achievers and always meeting targets because they have drive and don't give up. But whilst this approach works great in sales and I can see why Debra is a high achiever there; she lacks good leadership skills and doesn't listen to people or motivate others. Someone like her in charge would probably have a high staff turnover due to inability to change her style, ruling with an iron fist and perhaps overexpecting from her team. She is also someone who makes rash decisions and doesn't always think them through, Sometimes it is good to be a risk taker. Sometimes it isn't.

If you are exhibitig a product in a fair, you would ask the supplier the exclusiviy question when negotiating. It would then be your decision as to whether to take on the risk, but you can adjust and allow for the possible question to arise during your sales pitch. It would also affect your strategy. It was a good decision to go take a look round though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apprentice/epis...m_200159.shtml

Clearly exclusivity was a factor in the competition and Kate clearly mentions not being able to budge from the price

You can't totally manipulate editing regarding someone's personality, but they can highlight situations emphasizing a certain trait a lot whilst not showing another side, to make the trait seem a bigger part of the person than it is. ie. Philip always cocky and argumentative, when others describe him as funny and real laugh.

Here we see Kate and Howard laughing. How often do we see this side in the show. They come across much more serious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apprentice/epis...m_200173.shtml

It seems a bit odd to hold that against Howard. There were three people on that team and they all knew that they'd be in the boardroom trying to justify their place on the show. They're bound in that situation to be mentally noting things that they can use against others on the team in case the worst happens. As long as they aren't trying to actively sabotage or undermine other team members, I don't see anything wrong with this (in the context of The Apprentice; actual business is, as always, quite different)

Absolutely nothing wrong with it in terms of the game and certainly not SAS will take into account. But for me as a viewer it did show me that Howard has been playing the game which I'd thought he was doing but couldn't be 100% sure of. was a bit sly. But they all are on occasion. They are all there to win and friendships/loyalties mean nothing this late in the game

Seems like SAS saw through Howard just like I did.