Me too, especially after Stella made such a big deal about not wanting to wear that bikini. I think that Alex's team should've won, the Octikleen ad was cringey .

The tagline, 8 hands are better than 2. We know this. That means 4 people cleaning, not 1. So how did this tagline make any sense whatsoever???? They should have said something along the lines of how this new cleaning product would make cleaning so fast, it was almost like having 6 more hands. That would have made sense. The ad was awful, they should have just had wifey cleaning in the kitchen, but sped up so that she seemed to clean much more rapidly with octiclean. Then when hubby returned home from work, she could have handed him the bottle and told him to go and get on with the bathroom, and no excuses.

I though the "stap line" was so wrong.

Eight are better than two.

Surley they should have meant

NOW 2 are better than 8??

Are they all just collectively thick?
Every household cleaner has the warning "Keep out of the reach of Children"
In one group's advert, a child was the centre-piece and the rationale of the advert.
The other group, in their advert, devised some incomprehensible connection with an octopus and a weird 1950s "little woman" advert.
Many other flaws.
Sid was, quite rightly in my view, horrified.

I actually can see why the Octikleen 'campaign' won.

It has been explained before that in these tasks, they are not expected to come up with a fantastic, TV worthy advert. The point of the task is:
- to brand the product (which they did in terms of the colouring and the logo, which the other team failed on),
- create a memorable strap line (8 hands are better than two is at least original - hasta la vista gravy is funnier, but is hardly original)
- create an advert inkeeping with the campaign as a whole, which is relevant to the product and stresses what the product does. The Octikleen team's advert was awful and cringeworthy, but they did mention what the product does and the whole point of it. The Germinator ad was funnier, but in the advert, they mucked up with two important things:
- the description of the product and what it does
- they let a kid use something that specifically states to keep away from children (might not seem like much, but in these days of H&S gone mad, I would think that it's a huge no-no!)

Well, that's Chris's card marked as a sexist creep ... or it should be.

Beyond awful.

I really think LS made Chris's team the winner because he wanted to fire Alex.

There were no figures so he could easily have 'said' the other team had won had he wanted to fire any one of them. In reality he had all 10(?) to choose from. Alex had a narrow escape last week and I got the impression LS wanted to fire him then, its just that Paloma wound him up at the last minute.

Thats my opinion, because if he'd wanted to he could have had a field day with EVERY aspect of that Octiclean ad, he could have dissed their packaging too (looked bathroom-y and cartoon octopus etc) "Octo" being 8, not "Octi"... I even thought Sandeesh's pitch went much better (including Q&A) than Chris's team, there was plenty to rip into whichever team he made the losers.

I was certainly expecting Octo-kleen to lose, but on reflection they were both equally terrible.

The only glimpse of talent on the show was Stuart's voice acting.

The problem with The Apprentice tasks is that they never seem to get a decent brief. LS just says "go and create a brand and an advert for a cleaning product". That's a massive thing to do! Then you do it and he says "that was rubbish". I appreciate that that is part of the test but how on earth are the teams supposed to know what Lord Sugar wants?!

I completely agree.

This one denied them any selling line. With the soaps you at least can say whats in it and stress its natural and with the chocolate you had a choice of "cheap but inedible" and "so delicious, its a luxury buy". Here its basic generic chemical with no claim possible over any other cleaner.

You end up having to pick a name that not been used and a yellow (or otherwise friendly coloured) bottle.You then need a decent advert and a line to highlight the brand name.

You then had ridiculous judging where one team could be picked up for confusing dirt and germs, which are at least related, while and the other won with octopuses (un)connected to sex. Worse we had a winning implication that one cleaner would clean faster thn the rest of the market- wheras the loser suggested, far less clearly, that it would clean where no other cleaner could. Its bad enough when the least logical advert wins, but worse when its also the most misleading and illegal.

To be honest, a lot of adverts these days are sexist towards men. Most adverts with a family type situation the Dad is usually the butt of the advert's joke... but as we all know, the word 'sexist' only crops up when it applies to woman.

Octi-Kleen won because the Germ team made some absolutely dreadful mistakes.

The had a young child handling cleaning fluid, the label on the container of which stated quite clearly that it wasn't suitable for use by children. This was an absolutely unforgiveable mistake, Health and Safety and all that!

The second dreadful mistake was with the colour of the container and the product's label. Lord Sugar was right, with the cleaner being sold in that black container it looked more like it was something to clean your car with or, even, pour it into the sump with the oil! The label depicted what appeared to be a woman or a child, I'm still not quite sure which.

Again, to use Lord Sugar's terminology, the Octi-Kleen team weren't the team who won, they were the team who didn't loose! I'm not forgiving, in any way, their absolutely dreadful sexist advert featuring that stunningly attractive actress (I wonder who she is??!!!) at one point being dressed up as an octopus!

Come back Pants-Man, all is Forgiven !!!