DS Forums

 
 

Deliberate selection of weak candidates


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26-11-2010, 18:46
bangor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 33

A lot of the candidates on the Apprentice have been hopeless. Do you feel weak candidates are deliberately chosen because it is more entertaining when people make a mess of things.
bangor is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-11-2010, 13:13
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
No, but they are deliberately set up to fail by being over-worked, sleep-deprived, given ridiculously short deadlines, arbitrarily restricted rules, etc
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2010, 09:16
bigmatt1234
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 78
I dont buy the sleep deprived/overworked stuff. If these are top business people they would be used to extremely long hours and having to perform with little or no preparation. Even after doing an all-nighter at work it wouldnt take me 20 minutes on a calculator to announce that a single bread roll costs £1.98 etc.

I think the only explanation is that candidates are chosen for comedy value etc rather than work skills. Another explanation is that they consider being good at hard selling/cold calling to mean 'good at business'. The skills that get you to the top in business are relationship building, presenting, teamworking, innovation etc. Thats how sales are made, not by imitating a used car salesman, or calling every number in a phonebook.
bigmatt1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2010, 11:12
orangesmartie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,604
I thought at the beginning of the series that the 'candidates' chosen for this series were more like a dole queue than serious contenders. A couple of them seem to have their job title pre-fixed by 'unemployed'.

The only stand out candidate left for me is Liz. Paloma I think was pretty decent, but got a bit dragged down.
orangesmartie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2010, 14:31
LaurieMarlow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,894
I thought at the beginning of the series that the 'candidates' chosen for this series were more like a dole queue than serious contenders. A couple of them seem to have their job title pre-fixed by 'unemployed'.

The only stand out candidate left for me is Liz. Paloma I think was pretty decent, but got a bit dragged down.
I'm shocked at how much credit Paloma got. I thought she looked the part, sounded the part but made some of the biggest errors we've seen this season:

In episode 2 she loudly championed Laura's decision to not even enter into negotiations with Boots on exclusivity - which lost them the task.

Episode 3 she was promising the hotel chains/coffee shops everything under the sun with no frigging clue whether they could make the order or not - the compensation they had to pay lost them the task.

On the selling modern products task she promised exclusivity to the guy in soho which meant all her sales were void.

On the fashion task she failed to secure the best line of clothes - which lost them the task.

She looked and sounded like she knew what she was talking about, but as far as I can see she was cocking up all over the place.
LaurieMarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2010, 14:33
Shrike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 11,478
Even from series one its clear a truly capable and ambitious business person wouldn't waste their time on "apprentice" - its for a job after all, not a lump sum and the job has often turned out to be pretty mediocre.
Its just a bit of fun - though selecting a clearly idiotic candidate like Melissa is perhaps making it a bit too obvious
Shrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2010, 21:24
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,848
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ss-59fi4nM

This explains everything.
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 12:59
parthy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,010
I'm shocked at how much credit Paloma got. I thought she looked the part, sounded the part but made some of the biggest errors we've seen this season:

In episode 2 she loudly championed Laura's decision to not even enter into negotiations with Boots on exclusivity - which lost them the task.

Episode 3 she was promising the hotel chains/coffee shops everything under the sun with no frigging clue whether they could make the order or not - the compensation they had to pay lost them the task.

On the selling modern products task she promised exclusivity to the guy in soho which meant all her sales were void.

On the fashion task she failed to secure the best line of clothes - which lost them the task.

She looked and sounded like she knew what she was talking about, but as far as I can see she was cocking up all over the place.
I totally agree. People on here seem to think Paloma being fired was solely down to her self-sabotage in the boardroom. That didn't help but she had far more black marks against her than just that. I think people are taken in her looking the part.
parthy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 13:02
parthy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,010
parthy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 13:27
cookie_365
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brighton
Posts: 574
We're the ones watching ironically, right? Aren't we?
cookie_365 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 13:39
madetomeasure
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,972
I think it's all just a game, the same as any other reality show and it's not about the end result ie a job with Sugar, imo, it's again about the entertainment factor. Are we being told that these are some of the best business people/brains that's on offer? They are selected due to the furore they will cause, the debate that will ensue and the drama; the Junior Apprentice represented more of an adequate portrayal of the business world than this 'senior' lot. We were told that the Apprentice, in this difficult financial climate, was going to be incorporating people who had been made redundant. It may have done and that was in the shape of Alex. Sorry but including a Doctor and people who have their own successful businesses, and not given the TRUE people a chance is just a cop out. What about those people who have been made redundant from non-business environments? What about giving them a chance, taking on the candidates who have the potention to make that transition from manual to commerical work - that would have made far more interesting viewing.
madetomeasure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 13:44
parthy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,010
We're the ones watching ironically, right? Aren't we?
Yup.

When I saw that clip my boyfriend said "Eh, you do realise they're rip of the piss of you too there?"
parthy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 14:38
bigmatt1234
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 78
I totally agree. People on here seem to think Paloma being fired was solely down to her self-sabotage in the boardroom. That didn't help but she had far more black marks against her than just that. I think people are taken in her looking the part.
You get 50 Paloma's in every large organisation. Well presented and articulate, but with no end product and no true business sense. Anyone who can't work in a team is a liability and that's why she was picked last for the final.
bigmatt1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 14:50
parthy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,010
You get 50 Paloma's in every large organisation. Well presented and articulate, but with no end product and no true business sense. Anyone who can't work in a team is a liability and that's why she was picked last for the final.
Exactly. She was openly comtemptuous of her fellow candidates. I found her ugly actually because of that, good-looking or not.
parthy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 15:00
ofni
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,329
Wonder how Steady Eddie and Cautious Carol are getting on?
ofni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 17:19
Reggie Rebel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 629
Fired, replaced by Dynamic Dave and Workaholic Wendy. Although Wendy suffered a breakdown so was seen by Counsellor Charlie and replaced by Drugged-up Darren, who then went on a bender and was section by Psychiatrist Phil and replaced by Ruthless Rick who met an untimely end when he was stabbed in the gonads by Demented Davina.
Reggie Rebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 17:19
madetomeasure
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,972
Wonder how Steady Eddie and Cautious Carol are getting on?
i would say they are being cautious and steady but not too ready to take on sugar who appeared blank when Dara asked him why the name carol?
madetomeasure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 17:23
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
i would say they are being cautious and steady but not too ready to take on sugar who appeared blank when Dara asked him why the name carol?
He said 'it rhymes'.

(Actually, he meant it's alliterative but we'll forgive him as he's just a East-End boy made good.)
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2010, 18:29
Mrs Spratt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 2,455
Fired, replaced by Dynamic Dave and Workaholic Wendy. Although Wendy suffered a breakdown so was seen by Counsellor Charlie and replaced by Drugged-up Darren, who then went on a bender and was section by Psychiatrist Phil and replaced by Ruthless Rick who met an untimely end when he was stabbed in the gonads by Demented Davina.


Excellent.

I imagine Claude the interviewer's outfit runs a bit like that as they are probably all constantly stressed out by him refusing to shake hands with them, telling them they are not fish etc.
Mrs Spratt is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:59.