Let's just agree to disagree then.

OK. If you really think that accepting blatant dishonesty is a something makes him a suitable role model for new business people I suppose we'll have to.

The problem with your response was that it was completely confused as you were comparing buying with selling and yet gave a reason that only applied to selling.

You said:
... those examples are all selling.

This week they were all buying.

You cannot give exclusivity for something you do not own all rights to.

The third line is a complete non-sequitur to the first two.

(And your third statement is incorrect, anyway, as it would depend on the details of your agency.)

In future I will break up the quote and answer each point separately just for you, so you can understand it more clearly. Although I doubt I'll ever bother to reply to you again.

Your final point was covered in my second response to you about the ownership of rights, they clearly didn't have them in that instance.

ROFLMAO.

I could see perfectly clearly what you were saying.

It was just confused and didn't make sense.

No need to split things up artificially - just make sure that what you are saying makes sense.


But again you missed the point was that she only refused to offer exclusivity on the spot. Which would have been considered perfectly reasonable in any real life situation.

The problems the candidates have is that they never know when Sugar will throw a wobbler on the basis of how their behaviour would relate to to the real life long term aspects of business and when 'it's just a game'. In Lindi's case it was 'You shouldn't have done that because in real life there was more to consider'. whereas in Laura's it was 'This is just a game so you shouldn't have behaved as if it was real life'.

It's very easy for people here to back-fit a rule to any example of his behaviour but a lot more difficult for the candidates who have to operate without perfect hindsight. Given his outburst of self righteous indignation at the girls flirting a couple of series back I was expecting him to explode at Chris's downright dishonesty but he just shrugged it off.

Surely not!!!!! Tell me you're joking.

Nope, it happened.

From 5:15 onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX8Lm...eature=related


Oh, Ivana

How did "The Donald" react to that?

Maybe she thought she was for the chop, and was playing up for her preferred post-Apprentice career.

Its part of the bigger issue at the heart of the show and probably the guy himself . Does he want market trader skills or something more appropriate to modern big business and mass university level education. When he wants to he will get rid of people for being too academic, too corporate, to nice, too honest. Its further complicated by what the job on offer is as he seems to match people to jobs, not decide on ability overall. When he wants to, he will go for the self-made minor entrepreneur, but, when he wants someone as as corporate, highly educated and well spoken as possible for the job at hand, he will go for a Simon.

Its compunded by the nature of the tasks. Many tasks are decided by whim deciding which was better - or randomly depending on who finds what supplier, who gets stuck in traffic or who gets a dud lead. Morality is an issue except when its not and many tasks encourage behaviour that would be fatal in the real world - where you would want to trade again with the same people. Others are fundamentally flawed because the data or time isn't available to make better decisions. Some fall apart because people end up trying to sell X in a market that doesn't buy X - with nothing to tell anyone what the market will be like when X is chosen .In its better shows , the US Apprentice allows people to do the market research that leads to success - in the UK show the market research is rarely adequate. The US show also tests ability to use modern information technology to find the data for the right choices - here its largely luck who they phone, using pre 2000 technology, and they don't even have the knowledge base to pick the right people to call. The task ends up testing nothing much. Many UK tasks also have multiple parts that are inevitably done poorly rather than the better US tasks where people are told to sell or advertise something that works and has been designed by someone else.

You end up very rarely getting very good performances - but often have the weaker of two poor ones winning. Which is which is often random. Who is chosen to go is even more random depending on how his Lordship thinks the task was set up, what he thinks it was testing, which arguments he picks, and what he happens to want or dislike on the day.

Excellent analysis.