Anyone think this week's task was unrealistic? I did!

Why would any advertising agency want to pay money to a publication that is only going to run for one issue? We didn't even see the publications on sale! Was it a demo issue? Were the ad agencies just 'pretending' to give sales orders? "Yes, we will spend money for a make-believe mag that will never appear."




The whole scenario was kind of ridiculous and had no bearing on real business. I know the show is not meant to be taken too seriously but this week's task was so far removed from what goes into making a real magazine. At least bother to show the mag on sale! Oh boy.

In every series there is a 'dummy' task. Usually a prototype and what a company would pay for it. I believe this task ought to be for real though and the winner should be making a magazine. They both said there was a gap in the market.

This task was childish in the extreme. To spend time and someone's money making a demo magazine and then get so-called world class advertising agencies to pretend to

A) show interest

B) prepare to pay for ad space

was just, well, frankly immature and nonsensical.

It was just pretending. I know the show is a bit fake but this really took the fake biscuit. I'm a big fan of the show but this task was childish. "Let's pretend to buy ad space for pretend magazine!"

Oh, please.

You obviously weren't paying attention OP. The magazine was never supposed to have gone on sale, as they explained. It was intended to be free and funded by the advertising revenue.

Yes. Just like all orders in all the tasks over the last 7 years have been.

I thought one agency saying they would take every page in the entire publication was unrealistic. I'd love to get an order like that - it never happens!

The advertising agencies are acting as judges, and the orders are simply their ratings of the team's performance.

Personally I think it would be more accurate and fair if the advertising agencies (or whatever) just rated the product out of 10. That way you don't get the "rating" for one agency overwhelming the votes from other agencies. Though, the way they have it created drama, because the obvious losing team can suddenly win because the advertising agency people decided they didn't like the tie that one of the candidates was wearing, and then say that they'd spend £203,533,323,533.27 on advertising n the other magazine.

Its easy to say that when you arent actually having to front the money since its all 'pretend'.

All that does is skew the result towards the team you liked the most ......... I think it stinks personally ....... to have everyone else give reasonable figures and then one lot to say ..... 'oh we'd buy every spot ...... have 60k of our pretend money'

Yes, I get the concept however the magazine was only going to run for one issue which is not how magazines work. I think people invest in magazines and hope they run for months or even years. Also, and I'm taking an uneducated guess here, the first issue of any new magazine is going to cost much more to produce than subsequent issues because of the initial production costs. You could incur initial losses even if the magazine is on sale 'for free'. It's possible the ad revenue won't cover the full cost of issue one whereas over time the investors in the mag should make some profit. I doubt any publisher makes a one-off magazine - free or otherwise.

Clearly, the ad agencies were pretending to pay for advert space. They knew the magazine was never going to be distributed so it was a meaningless task. Did we see Covered being distributed? Nope. There's no reason to believe the agencies were going to pay for a magazine that never secured a printing deal. According to this web interview, a freemium magazine can have a print run of 500,000 a week:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/orga...8howtosucceedw


Did any of the ad agencies seen on The Apprentice say to the teams

"How many issues do you plan to print? What readership numbers are you aiming for?"

Nope, they never asked those basic common sense questions because the magazines were never going to be printed, making the task pointless and make-believe. The agencies were just pretending to pay for advert space and we, the viewers, had to go along with the deception.

To be fair although i agree largely with what you are saying, you dont think we actually got to see the whole pitch do you?, how do you know that these questions were not asked?, but as an aside i did think the task was pretty pointless

The thing that annoyed me about the task was that it sort of belittled the skills needed to create/write for a magazine. As if just having a little idea is enough for success. For example Jim's team were selling adverts on an "idea" (funky old people) rather than what they actually produced (crap). I know it was make believe anyway, but it was a bit annoying that both teams sold on something they hadn't actually produced.

MOST tasks are unrealistic, they produce crap and poor service which in the real world would mean no repeat business, its a game show and only vaguely related to real business.

Indeed.

I think what is actually happening is that the tasks give Sugar and co the chance to see how people deport themselves in a very high pressure situations.

The tasks themselves are, usually, little more than a coin toss and it's a pity in a way that the results have to be used to determine the loser each week as there have been many instances where someone has escaped with a seriously poor performance because their team happened to win that toss.

I presume that most intelligent people by now realise that the task outcome is pretty much random and just adds to the 'chance' element of the whole game - together with who the losing PM happens to bring into the boardroom.

Some years ago a teenager into computers created a mock of a magazine for a particular brand of computer.

He obtained subscriptions from readers and advertising before a single issue had been produced.

An edition of the mag never appeared.

Although lads mags are in decline one of the media buyers said they place ads in ALL mags of that type.

Another agency probably with a different client list questioned who would buy space in 'Covered'.

Yes, but there's only going to be one winner so the others can be 'sacked' in any order leaving in place till the final the person or persons Sugar feels are the strongest candidates.

Last night's task was unrealistic? For the last seven years Alan Sugar has been 'firing' people he hasn't even hired yet, how does that work? I dunno about you but I've never been for a job interview and been told that I am 'fired' half way through it.

Nor have I ever had an interview whereby I've been forced to live with the other candidates during the process either.

The whole concept is unrealitic, last night's task was more realitic than the rest of the show.

As far as I can make out Jim really should have won. The agencies it seems didnt rate both any good at all. They were prepared to pay for what they both saw as a gap in the market. They considered Jim's the bigger gap thats all. I also get the impression that these ad people knew it was an apprentice task, and didnt like the way Jim behaved and decided to ditch him by buying up the whole opposition!

Really?

Patronising old(ish) people with a duff title, lousy cover design, and articles telling them how to use a phone?

The other team certainly didn't precisely hit a sweet-spot but they were a lot nearer the money than Jim's tragic effort.

To Jepson
You missed my point. The ad agencies were the judges. Their criteria was which had the bigger market gap. Not who had the best magazine. The other lads mag wasnt any better. Finance anyway doesnt sell advertising space. The AM paper never seems to have any. Two agencies rated Jim's higher and if he wasnt such a goon so would have the third.
Susan is right but a pity she is not articulate enough. If he would ever have had to sell anything he would know how NOT to treat them. No one is ever eager to buy.
This was supposed to be a free mag. Which people would most likely pick up at stations and the idea would be to make sure you took it home with you and not just glance at it and throw it away. I would have suggested something similar to a Womans Own but modernised. To include a story, serial, advice column etc. I still suggest to LS and his new partner to make one. Now he has been told there is a gap in the market for even two!

Yes, just like every other task of this kind over the last 7 years. Have you really only just worked this out?

Whoever said they'd pay £60,000 were they taking the p* ?

Although Natasha's mag was far superior to the other rubbish idea and she and her team deserved to win.

One thing that really winds me up and I'm sure others, is her use of 'yea' at the end of nearly every sentence .

They didn't quite say that. What they asked was what was the discount if they bought the max - buying out the entire publication. It does happen sometimes, I had clients that did that a few times. Obviously it was hypothetical because it's an exercise but ad agencies often do these sorts of tasks as part of teamwork building, training and client relationship events.

Jim blew the task completely - and should have been fired - because he is stupid enough not to realise that you'd have to discount massively to secure such a great offer to sell every page in one hit. Had he discounted - at even over 50% - he would have got some business and most likely have won the task because he was ahead with the other 2 agencies.

It was his pigheaded stubborness that lost his team the task and the fact that he did not get fired is down to the producers keeping in who is good for TV as opposed to who actually makes the mistakes in these tasks. The fact that the execution of the magazine was poor, the title was moronic and the team worked together badly didn't come into it. To win all you needed was the biggest offers. He got the most, he just didn't get the biggest.

It's going to be an interesting episode of You're Fired when she's on....

Dara: So how does it feel to be fired by Lord Sugar, Errrrrrrrr
Natasha: I was gutted, yea
Dara: I think you were unlucky, Errrrrrrrr
Natasha: I think Jim should have gone instead of me, yea
Dara: Let's see what our audience think, Errrrrrrrrrr

Very good