I'd rather base my opinion on what I watched, not on what FMs posted nor on what you 'seem to remember'. It was a hot topic at the time and we picked over it (and its repeat) meticulously. If it had been 'made clear from the start', she wouldn't have done it.

Your earlier comments were personal and non-constructive - which you acknowledged - so you're a bit silly to backtrack.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't have to be made clear from the start esp. not to those with a sales background. Exclusive terms mean that similiar retail outlets won't be able to order the ice cream. As the whole point was to get as much cash via as many outlets as possible (as most sales would be small).
They had spent the day before phoning up as many small places as possible, rather than try and get a meeting with a big high street name, so that was the strategy that they then torpedoed. Raef was accurate when he tried to explain it away as caught up in the excitement of the sale. They lost their heads. Exclusive deals are only for those who can place an order for the entire production of a factory and thus cover all the costs of the factory, plus a profit. Or the remaining fraction if you've already got some outlets. A few local shops for local people in the case of the ice cream makers. Exclusive deals to a supplier are double edged as they take away your chance to grow as it's all dependant on the retailer now.

Exclusive deals didn't need pointing out in the fitness 'thing' for series 5. John Lewis can ask and get it as they would order far far more than the other two single outlets. £150,000 as it turned out (if it had been a real order).
Nobody seemed to offer exclusive deals to even the big pet retailer later in that series.


In the event it was a tight decision between Lindi and Jen M, as they were pretty much joined at the hip from task 1. The former going as she was supposed to be in charge and thus responsible. The 24 hr hotline being a negative, with Jen M's idea of selling tickets for the task 3 meal event being a positive.

Having mentioned the possibility of an expanded list of 20 or 30 of the worst candidates, I'm starting to think of others that could be considered.

I am thinking that Ben (series 5) could find his way into the expanded list. Although he did come up with treasure flakes and toned down later on, he did mess up big time on other tasks (home multi tome, week 6 as PM, and the next task where he sold nothing) and bigged himslef up a bit too much, and in the end the puff didn't match substance. He probably shouldn't be in the top 10 though. Maybe No. 30 or higher. Any thoughts?

How did 'exclusivity' break the rules?
Nope - there are a number of permutations under which exclusivity would have been workable - for that task on that day - depending on brand and/or trademark ownership, licensing and franchising, none of which was made clear in the programme aired so it isn't as cut and dried as you seem to think. You also seem to be forgetting the objective was sales made on the day, not ongoing. They were unlucky to lose, but had they won would she have been sacked? And your comparisons to later tasks are irrelevant as they don't share the same ownership ambiguity.

The long and short of it is that we'll have to agree to disagree as I doubt we'll ever reach any agreement.

I agree that it's not as straightforward as people make out.

It's a question of mindset as much as anything. I'm sure that the candidates, to a greater or lesser extent, consider what they are doing to be some sort of game. Sometimes that's more valid than others.

I remember being disgusted when both teams mucked up the catering task and thus spoiled a couple of events but my disgust was with the production company rather than the candidates.

I think that the candidates have a reasonable expectation that their 'minders' from said production company will step in if they attempt to act 'ultra vires' when attempting to perform a task with which they are not familiar in, often, completely unrealistic timescales and with an enormous amount of artificially induced pressure. (General living arrangements and rules as well as the actual pressure of the tasks.)

Apart from the complete twanks like Sophocles and Pants-man I think most of the candidates would be eminently employable in the right jobs (no rude comments about McJobs, please ), and the dismissive stance of a lot of the posters here shows a somewhat naive attitude to the reality of what these people are going through.

I understand that these guys are under a lot of pressure - they say it often enough in interviews afterwards. Nethertheless, how well they cope with that pressure (and how many mistakes they make as a result) determines how good they are, and the viewer has a right to point out how good or bad they are, in his/her opinion. That doesn't mean, as you pointed out, that the majority of candidates are in any way unemployable.

Of course, you can sound pretty naive and arrogant when you slag them off and criticise, but being an armchair critic looking down on these people is, for many, part of the beauty of watching the apprentice . Cynical and maybe sad, but true. As far as the whole debate we had goes, agreeing to disagree is fine with me.

Regarding the pressure, time frame, and other constraints caused by TV etc, I think we agree that is unfair to compare their performance with normal life. It is fair though to compare them against each other and across series. More allowance for behaviour could be made for those going beyond the half way stage as stress and sleep deprovation will be taking their toll. So someone showing twatishness from Task 3 onward, is more a candidate for the list, than someone who blows up big time task 9 but has been reasonable until then. As the OP mentioned Ben, typically he does the opposite

To go back to the exclusivity thing (groan). Sugar did say that if he had known they had offered this, then those sales would have been voided. But they lost anyway. At the beginning Sugar told the teams that they would be helping two small ice cream makers to break into the London market. Real companies with real products, not pretend Apprentice designed products like the fitness items. The sales on the day, were just the metric to determine the winning team, the overall purpose was always going to play a part in Sugar's thinking.
Sorry Sweet FA, but what have trademark ownership or franchising got to do with it? One is to stop passing off one product as another, the other is a complete business model. Do you understand what they mean? NONE OF THAT APPLIES HERE. Please don't use business buzzwords to gain credibility. For what is worth I've run my own business for 22 years, make a product to sell, have a known and respected niche brand, and a registered trademark. An armchair critic I may be, but a slightly informed one. I can spot the real world applications of the tasks (and they always do) and Sugar does make sense when it comes to culpability (most times including this). Sorry SweetFA, despite your attempt to impress, it's a simple exclusive, you are the sole stockist of these products in your area (the whole of London)/ type of retail outlet. Lindi's deal screwed one made by Lucinda. Jen M's did not, but was unnecessary as one poster has pointed out, no one choses a cinema night out because of the ice cream. Unless they are not fussy about films much but love that particular ice cream, which is a very small customer base.

To a degree, yes, but you are operating on a very small sample size.

Some people get the opportunity to foul up a lot sooner than others.

Lindsey from the first series was one of the worst. Completely disregarded the opinion of her whole team, a focus group and the advice of the people creating her product, and still claimed it wasnt her fault!

Sample size is 75 candiadtes so far. But that's what we have to comment on.
Agreed those in the first task have no time to prove themselves. They say ridiclous things and are set up for the fall. Though Nicholas de Lacy in the boardroom really confirmed it in a way Anita Shah did not.

I think Nicholas was probably set up for a fall by the producers from the moment they chose him! They clearly knew that Sir Alan has little time for lawyer apprentices, and Nicholas was generally made to look like a buffoonish snob from the start (which he I think he was at the time, juding by post-show interviews), although some would argue he was set up a bit by Alex.

His massive errors both in and out of the boardroom mean I would probably rate him as the worst candidate to be fired first. Would he make it to the top ten? I'm not sure, but he would find his way onto the expanded list. I did have a bit of spympathy for him though when Katie Hopkins was slagging him off...

No, I meant the sample size of tasks performed for the first to be fired.

One in the case of the first task.

Only in truly exceptional circumstances can that be either fair or sensible.

I'd love to see the show re-jigged so that no one is fired for the first 4-6 weeks. Then two a week for the equivalent number of weeks - possibly including someone from the winning team if they'd really performed exceptionally badly.

Of course, we could all come up with out own 'Fantasy Apprentice' - mine would have Margret back. Never going to happen, though.

Totally agree and have thought that for a awhile. It would be a lot fairer and be closer to real life or at least GEC's yearly cull of the 10% worst performers. I would say firings in groups every three weeks. That way you could keep in the talented who stuff up once or are set up. But, won't ever happen.
1) Sugar isn't looking for an apprentice anyway. He's got two, his sons Daniel and Simon. And Claude. Just someone who won't make the first years 100k a total waste.
2) The show isn't meant to be fair, it's edited to appear so.
3) The weekly 'walk the plank' is the reason the public love it so much. It makes neat hourly storylines. The makers don't believe the public has the intelligence to remember what happenned one or two weeks earlier. Hence the long recapping.

I don't feel sorry for the candidates though. Those that have got some spark get a chance to show it to a wider audience and it helps when getting a real job. It hasn't hurt even those that made this thread's list, quite the opposite (dammit lol). James (S5) probably had the right idea, go for the challenge, have fun, then go back to your job and dine out on it for a while.

It doesn't take a lifetime of running one's own business to appreciate/understand brand ownership, trademarks and their various applications - either you do or you don't. They aren't 'buzzwords' either...

Yes, but you brought them into an arguement about Jen M and Lindi simply offering a couple of retail outlets the sole ability to sell that ice cream within the whole of London for a few months (which is licensing). I wondered why you thought all those brand related protections applied here. Because they don't as far as I can see as they are all long term protections, not for one task on one day, which you seemed to suggest they could be used for. They are exclusive to the ice cream maker anyway, not the retailers.

I was simply suggesting I know what they are as they are part of my business. In case anyone thought I just learnt about them during business studies

I third the post you quoted, and agree with what you add too.

A lot of the time you're right, they do usually escape unscathed once they leave, and make the most of it, even if they did make the list of the damned (sorry if that sounded a little bit narcissistic). I've heard that Kevin, for example, now earns twice the amount that the winner earns. Phil apparently now has his own "pants" business .

They don't always avoid the consequences though. Katie H is probably still considered unemployable by many, and will probably end up regretting her little shot at fame for a long time. Unless her appearence on question time pays off, which we all hope it won't...

I don't know if you read DS' last interview with Jenny C, but she apparently also lost her job as a result of the show, hence the reason why she's doing the whole thing with Kristina. If you make a pig out of yourself on nation-wide TV, regardless if you're edited/pressured or not, you can expect a backlash. No sympathy that it happened in her case.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s108/...pprentice.html

So that's a very good reason, why, as you said, it's better to do it the way James (both S1 and S5) did. You won't suffer serious consequences, other than people urging you to be funny all the time...

My understanding, which comes from behind the scenes rather than the actual broadcast, is that the rival idea, "battling robots", could not be done within the budget they were set. (Which was around £15.) She thought if they used it, they'd be disqualified for breaking the rules.

As it happened, they boys' team was also over budget, s they'd probably have been fine. However, she wasn't to know that. Remember this was the second episode of the first series, so it wasn't clear how strict the rules would be.

So I don't think she was as bad as she is made out to be. Her big mistake was dithering, and trying to back both horses for too long. She had her team prepare two pitches, for example, so at least half that work was wasted, and on a tight deadline they couldn't afford any waste. But as Apprentice cock-ups go, it was small beer.

I also don't think the "secret signals" idea was too bad. It was a way of communicating, in code, for children who weren't allowed mobile phones, and you could add your own codes, nicknames for specific teachers, etc. The task was judged by industry experts, and who's to say they got it right? Maybe if they'd actually built and sold the product, it would have surprised them.