Their prices had to be high as their costs were high, if they had cut the prices they would have made even less profit. I don't think they would have got many more customers if their prices were lower.

The main reason they lost was because they spent too much money on tea and ingredients for the cakes. Alice had to go as she didn't manage this very well on the first day.

As much as I don't like Maria she was not to blame for the loss of the task.

That's why both will be kept till close to the end, someone to boo and cheer for.

They were instructed to 'revamp' the concept.

The other side of the equation is how was Alice meant to know what the customers were like at a place she had probably never heard of. All she had for a steer was Lord Sugar talking about quality teas. If David had lost because no one had turned up for a party, Lord Sugar would have attacked him for missing the point and giving them jam and cheese instead of a quality meal.

The task is pretty dubious too. The market research couldn't be anything other than useless as they tested a different market to the one they didn't know. Alice didn't ask the questions, but its not clear that they had answers. There's also a big question mark about geography. Alice's sales fell off during the day - was she just near the entrance and David nearer the exit?

His Lordship had a look when Maria was describing how determined she was and how she got passionate . The look said "thats me too". She needs a good outing as PM though and interestingly her and Navdeep are due to get their turn as PM next time so we may get to see what, if anything either can do.

It is always a perverse possibility on TA that the worse team can win, as was obvious this week. David's team spent half their time screeching at each other, far more interested in pre-empting the blame than in getting the food on the table; but the customers didn't see any of that, and just went for the cheaper deal.


Yes, good review again. I think people really do need to bear in mind that TA is a gameshow with a business slant, not a realistic business appraisal. Alice was obviously a good staff manager and for her age a remarkably sensible, balanced person. If they had to run a business over six months I would bet heavily on her beating David at almost anything. But over two days, the task is never going to be primarily about staff management, let alone about the kind of good service that builds customer loyalty. It is about seeing the mechanics of the task and throwing everything at achieving the objective. On this occasion it didn't matter if the sandwiches and cakes were cheaply made: the customers bought them unseen, and unless they were vile were not going to ask for their money back. It didn't even matter if they had to wait longer or drink out of jamjars: once the money was in the box they were all right.

The palace is an oddity, actually. The 'main entrance' is in the back, facing north. It has two courtyards - one is a massive courtyard in the front, facing south, with a road leading out to a bridge, and the other is a smaller courtyard, facing west, with a road leading out to the main road. This smaller courtyard is used as the tourist's entrance with a car park outside, facing west. There are two outer buildings and a car park on the right side of the palace, facing east, and I believe those are for staff only.

Alice's tents were at the back (where the 'main entrance' is), facing north, in the east area where the formal garden is. I can't work out exactly where David's tents were. Definitely on a corner, but which corner, I don't know. If I were to make a guess, it's probably at the 'front', facing south, between the massive courtyard and the staff car park. Both tents were on the opposite end (east side) of the tourist's entrance and car park (west side).

Both tent positions have advantages and disadvantages, though.

Advantages:
Alice's tents were located near the formal gardens, the natural end of each official tour (three per day - 11AM, 1PM and 3PM with each tour lasting 35-40 minutes). Alice would gain a bulk of the official tour and formal garden visitor crowds.

David's tents were near the massive courtyard where explorers could spot his tents. David would gain a bulk of the explorer crowd.

Both tents had direct access to side-paths that tourists use to walk back to the tourist's car park up in the west side. Alice's end: a north-facing path from the formal garden to the car park. David's end: a south-facing path from the massive courtyard to the car park.

Disadvantages:
Alice: The last official tour ends at 4PM, so the traffic would thin out around that time; an hour before the task deadline.

David: the tent location was quite distant from all main hubs of activities. He'd have been 100% screwed if no tourists bothered to check out the massive courtyard.

I disagree the idea isn't that bad. It fell down on two areas.

1) To have a twist it has to be something really clever or original and they were never going to come up with something thats was, so they should have ditched the twist idea.

2) This was the biggest mistake and IMO comes down to her age. I got what she was trying to do. Unfortunately she got the wrong decade. What she was actually presenting to the public was the 1920's. That was when you had the high tea etc. The flapper dancing, charlston etc. The 1940's being war time was more about rationing etc. If she had got that right and went for the right era, IMO she would have won especially as that kind of thing would really appeal to any tourists visiting Blenheim Palace. It would also have fitted in with the location, the stately home etc too.

I'm just glad neither team thought a 'revamp' would entail just sticking a Union Jack on a cake.

To be honest I thought her one piece of guidance - traditional with a twist - which she said repeatedly as if this gave everyone the guidance they needed was pretty rubbish. And she spent one day eating cakes and drinking tea - in what way did this lend itself top the team's efforts. And her rah rah speeches were a bit duff.

Also remember the episode a few weeks ago where she, Amy and Ashleigh basically decided not to play when Lucy was pm. That did not appear quite as professional as you suggest.

I missed that one, so that could well be a big point against her. Most of the girls seem to be playing the 'undermine the PM at all times' game though.

I think the 40's theme could have worked with a bit more imagination (RAF roundels on cupcakes, union jacks everywhere, Glenn Miller music playing etc.) but just a few of them in uniform didn't really cut it.

It's been debated on these forums before just how much the teams (even in the adult version) are steered down certain avenues in order to ensure that each team always achieves something within the filmable timeframe. It's far from impossible that the teams only had a limited number of vague ideas to choose from, each with the costumes & props already booked & available, as opposed to being able to choose (say) a space theme out of thin air, only to find they could hire any costumes in time...

That said, Upstairs Downstairs (or to be more topical, Downton Abbey) would have been a perfect theme in the circumstances...

Please anything but more Union Bloody Jacks. Putting them on anything as part of a task is the opposite of 'imagination.'

I would have put a 21st century spin on high tea. Future versus Past. Too much work?

I know what you mean, but surely if there's any theme that justifies Union Jacks, it's wartime Britain?

Too vague! You're fired!

Personally she got wrong the following

1. No costing so how the hell do you know what it cost to provide a cup of tea and cake?
2. Pricing...with no idea how much it cost to make she charged prices that would scare off alot of people and if they'd been a bit more price savvy they may of gained more custom and won
3. WW2 theme - it was Austerity only the toffs were having tea and cake at the ritz so should of gone 1920/30's as very little changed in the mindset of most punters

As I said in another thread regarding this, Alice should have been quicker in reducing prices when she clearly saw that it wasn't working. She also sent the other two girls off to give out information but did not direct them where to go. It took her too long to rectify the situation.

Bringing Maria back in to the boardroom was probably in the hope that Maria would get annoyed and would be sacked. I think LS saw through this. She has made mistakes as well but definitely did not deserve to get sacked for this task. Alice did

I agree that there seems to be a rush every week to be the first to say 'that is really poor project management'. We have a drinking game at home every time a comment like that is made. Think they're all a bit too savvy about the process now.

Once again, I think Alice, Maria and Navdeep were all a lot more switched on as to how the boardroom game and tactics would work, playing the personality game rather than bringing back people who actually did badly on the task.

Alice brought back Maria hoping she'd stitch herself up and Navdeep because she hadn't been particularly standout, probably hoping that her record would save her over either one or the other of them.

If she'd brought back the baker boy she would've had someone to pin things on, although bringing back Patrick would only have shed light on how little she herself had done on teh first day.

Perhaps she was worried about him siding with whichever girl she went for whereas the other two girls would each have gone in to save their own skin.

But Maria DID stitch herself up. She showed she is an aggressive idiot who doesn't listen to anyone, and Nick confirmed she was responsible for insisting on the high prices. What did she actually do right in this task? She should have been fired. The only reason she wasn't was that she is good tv. Or Alan Sugar makes dumb decisions. Or both.

Or that she wasn't really responsible for the failure of the task and Alice was.