I was just looking at the ratings for each series, and was shocked to see how low they were in the early days. I never imagined The Apprentice being as low as 2m.

They did rise in Series 2, but seemed to have made a bigger impact in Series 3, which was dubbed as the most controversial. Personally, the first time I ever heard of the show was during Series 3, because of the press coverage.

Well the fact it was stuck away in a death slot on BBC2 may have had a lot to do with low ratings in the early days.

I first watched in Series 2, but I do think that Series 3 was the best of the seven so far.

However, with that being said, I would attribute the long-term success of The Apprentice to Paul Torrisi and Saira Khan in Series 1, as they generated the entertainment value that ensured it would be a long-term hit.
I would agree with CaroUK in that the Series 3 spike in ratings was probably due to the transfer from BBC2 to BBC1.

As mentioned, the first 2 series of the show went out on BBC2 (where the average rating is 2 or 3 million viewers for popular shows).

While series 3 did get people talking about it, this was also the series which had one of the worst winners (certainly after following the likes of Tim and Michelle) and gave a precedent for the vile series 4 (look, I´m Katie Hopkins junior!).

Sorry, I have to disagree with you calling Simon one of the worst winners. Simon stayed for three years and was probably the most successful post-show winner. Compare him to all of the women that one and Tim and Lee (who stayed only two years each) and Sugar's compliments to Simon in the Series 4 You're Hired. Honestly, there was a huge uproar at the time, but in hindsight he was probably more suited for Sugar than Kristina was.

Not sure staying with Lord Sugar makes you more successful, You would have to look at their CVs, bank balances and how happy they were to decide who was most successful - if you could agree the criteria and knew how successful they would have been anway. Some of the non winners have probably done better and Michelle who stayed least long might be the most successful on other criteria as well as the most visible.

It has to have something in series one to build and maintain initial interest enough and they are probably it. After that you have Michelle and the Badger who bring good TV personalities and story - supported by some real casting gems like Jo and Syed. You then sustain that with people like Claire and Katie plus a growing zany and comedy element?

Series 3 was the last one when the Candidates were really interested in the job rather than using it as a launching pad for a career on barely watched TV Channels

Series 4 I loved because of Raef, but Series 3 had two outstanding characters in Tre and Katie. Tre tearing Rory a new arsehole was blissful viewing.

Aaah, I didn't know about that. I just assumed it always aired on BBC1 at a decent time.

Did he invent something

Serious question, I´m foreign and don´t keep up with any British papers.

Offcourse, you are free to disagree with the majority of Apprentice fans (heck, happens to me all the time, still adore Melody for instance).




Surely that (the hindsight part) would only work if both had worked for him??

K.t.. H..k..s

(fill in the blanks for yourself)