They persisted so much with their haggling until they had embarressed the shopkeepers in front of the camera crew. They came across as a bunch of lying conmen. I wouldn't employ any of them after watching last night's fiasco.

It seems we are in a minority on this forum.

The majority here seem to take a very relaxed attitude to lying.

To be fair to Jamie, though, he wasn't so much lying as persistent and it worked so you can't really fault him on that.

I think you'll find the word is "cringeable".

The blue book lie was hilarious, the kilt lie was rolling on the floor laughing.

Hardly.

517k Google results for cringeworthy
17k for cringeable

Both are in the dictionary.

I think 'cringeworthy' works better.

I thought it was cringeworthy and ridiculous.

Also, I'm amazed that any seller would give them a discount off the back of that performance. My attitude would be 'what sort of idiot do you think I am, to believe that nonsense?' and get them to jog on. They really were acting as though the shopkeepers were idiots but they were clever enough to spin some yarn to win them over. They'd have no luck treating me like that.

The more lies they told, the more I'd want to put the price up!

I'm going to take it that you didn't watch the start of the series, then. Try searching this forum for "cringeable".

No, I agree with both of you, it was cringeworthy, not to mention dodgy.

I'm talking about Chris and Stu. I thought Jamie did well.

Did you miss the Apprentice-themed joke?

Maybe if, like the shopkeepers in the programme, you saw they were accompanied by a film crew guaranteeing your tiny outlet exposure on national tv if you sold to them you'd offer them the deal. It's called business, baby!

It was so bad even the two people selling the blue book didn't believe his story. I'd have loved to have heard what they said after Chris and Stuart had gone

Personally I thought the lack of negotiation skills of the girls, especially the abject humiliation of Stella and Laura in negotiating for the Truffles and the Tartan was cringeworthy.

Chris, far outside his comfort zone, was magnificient and duly praised by Lord Sugar and Karen Brady. The opinions that matters to an apprentice candidate.

What show were you watching! I thought Jamie was the worse of any of the contestants this week. He spent 2-3hours attempting and failing to find one item. His lack of ability to find/buy things led to the group getting fines of over £500. No wonder you're not a business tycoon if that's a strong performance in your books.

As we are talking about the negotiating in the task, Jamie did a much better job, more professional than Chris and Stuart.

Yes Jamie got stuck and that was a huge error but on negotiating he attained good discounts much more professionally than the other two.

This comment makes me think YOU didn't watch the show:


He did buy items and got excellent discounts on them too.

As to the highlighted bit, there's is absolutely no need to get personal. Don't belittle people for having different opinions to you. You know nothing about me.

It wasn't cringeworthy, it was the task. It wasn't about who is the best business negotiator, if that were the case they wouldn't be running around the streets of London.

Sir Alan knows they can act all corporate, this was simple can you negotiate a price down yes or no. For the guys it was simply yes, for Stella a resounding no and the other girls, questionable.

ROFMAO.

Oh dear!

I can still hear the 'woosh' of that one going right over my head.

The buyers get a product at a good price; the sellers make a sale. And get to be shown on TV - what's the problem? If the sellers didn't like it, they wouldn't have agreed to be filmed.

In some countries, haggling, along with the tall stories, is a way of life - I'm shocked that folk here still have such a strong aversion to it.

The saddest thing is that acceptance of dishonest behaviour is now so embedded in some people's psyche that that actually find it shocking that there are still people who value honesty and integrity.

I would have found it funny if the lies was expressed with a bit of enthusiasm behind it....Chris is one dreary bloke!! But they know how to haggle and they did this quite well...despite Jaime losing out on 3 items!!

Yes.. it was very Laurel and Hardy!

Anyone trying to sell their wares at a 70-100% mark-up is hardly a paragon of honesty or integrity are they? It's all theatre and the sellers weren't exactly threatened, harmed or even taken in by the stories - we even see some of them having a laugh at their ridiculousness. It's dog eat dog out there!

Whether or not it was cringeworthy/cringeable, what I found most appalling was that Chris seemed to have no sense that he was actually doing anything wrong. It wasn’t so much the lying itself (we all lie) but that in Chris’s world, even when you are on an extended job interview and therefore should at least be trying to present an image of integrity, it is an acceptable business practice.
And yes, I know that LAS has rewarded lying in the past (i.e. Lee McQueen), and I also know that the shopkeepers weren’t harmed, and that all involved knew that these were just lies and were playing along for mutual publicity. However, whereas I have to admit that I have lied in the workplace in the past (i.e. ‘Have you finished that job yet?’ ‘Yes’, knowing that I was still working on it; ‘Did you check that order thoroughly before it went out?’ ‘Yes’, knowing I had only given it a cursory glance) I do these in context and, more importantly, I know that I shouldn’t. And knowing that I shouldn’t, I certainly wouldn’t act that way during an interview/assessment. At the end of the day I’m disappointed that his team-mates, Nick, Karen and the You’re Fired panel all just thought it was a bit of a laugh and not indicative of any failing on Chris’s part (I knew that Lord Barrow-Boy wouldn’t be bothered).
But at the end of the day what saddens me most is that I seem to be in a minority on this.

That depends. There are rules that cover that kind of thing. If a manufacturer gives you a retail price and says you have to stick by it, then you do. If the manufacturer finds you selling their product for less than they think it should be sold and therefore undercutting your competitors and giving the impression that their wares are worth less on the market than they think they are, then they can and will tell you to raise your prices to be in line with everybody else and may re-consider supplying you in the future.

It's not as simple as there being a list price and then shopkeepers pulling a mark up out of their bums.

Fact is, that the 'guys' did what they did by hook or crook, and got the result ( it is a competition you remember ) and got the credit for it, simple as that.

That's that if you have no sense of honesty or integrity.