I really dislike Andrew. He was putting it over that Navdeep was just negative, but that's not come across as being so at all - she's clearly very positive if she thinks an idea is a good one. She was against Andrew's ideas in this task because they were bad ideas, and she was astute enough to see it (apart from the toilet paper on the shoe, and they all liked that).

Andrew should have gone; it was his bad ideas and, frankly, his arrogance that lost them the task. Navdeep has shown weaknesses, but she isn't remotely a useless candidate, as Patrick is, and as Max and David were. It was unfair to fire her now.

I would have been OK either way. Andrew has taken several steps backwards the past few weeks and his days are surely numbered. (But, please, can we fire Patrick first?) I agreed with Sugar's comments that Navdeep lacked business nous. She's a very good presenter and speaker, and sometimes talented people just aren't cut out for business - it doesn't mean they can't be highly successful elsewhere.

Personally, I would have tipped marginally towards firing Andrew. But Navdeep was never going to win, so I'm not up in arms at Sugar's decision.

Best part of the tasks for me was the great musical choices on the ads. I'm sure the teams had help in selecting them, but even so.

Platinum: Whip My Hair - Willow Smith. There really is a song that fits every occasion, isn't there? LOL.

Odyssey: Express Yourself - Charles Wright and the Watts 103rd Street Rhythm Band. I'd be surprised if this was chosen by one of the candidates, given that it's reasonably obscure and dates back to 1971. Although it has been sampled recently by Labirinth - was it a coincidence that he then popped up in the winning team's treat? Hmmm ...

More random thoughts and analysis in my weekly recap ...
http://slouchingtowardsthatcham.com/...rma-chameleon/

Mostly fair enough, but I have to say that Stephen doesn't deserve credit over Navdeep for thinking up Brian as a brand name. I'm sure Navdeep could have thought of a name just as crap if she were trying to come up with ideas just for the sake of saying she'd come up with ideas.

I thought the "Chameleon" ad was much better. For a change in an ad task in the Apprentice it looked quite slick. The concept was confusing, but it looked quite professional and the voice over was very good. Especially compared to the horrid, cheesy, in your face "Strexy" hairspray ad with its truly terrible "girl-power" story and wooden presentation. That had concept flaws too. The girl boxer had her hair tied back so what good would the hairspray do? Apart from giving her what appeared to be super powers. Andrew wasn't a good leader, but Maria was worse, yet this will count for her as a win.

Then to compound things Lord Sid sacks Navdeep who hadn't put a foot wrong all series. Saving Andrew despite losing five times, yet he sacked David last week because losing four times was too much. I was really angered by Andrew's misrepresentation in the boardroom too.

I agree that the Chameleon ad looked better and came across as more professional. The faults with the campaign were entirely with the text on the packaging conflicting with the name of the product, which Navdeep was vocal in opposing. It could have been saved if the team leader had rethought the blurb in line with the realisation that a chameleon doesn't stand out, he blends in. He fits, he is appropriate in any context etc. I'm not surprised that Navdeep's pitch was uncharaceristically weak, how could she present a concept that had such a fundamental contradiction?

The failure of the task was down to the team leader, as it was last week. Andrew also made a big mistake in not bringing back Lucy, who contributed little beyond agreeing with Andrew's bad decisions. Navdeep was trying to save the task, Lucy sat back and let it be sacrificed. The wrong person went.

Which part? The firing or the decision on who won? He got both wrong in my opinion.

Seriously though, the thinking of the so-called 'experts' on the adverts that were presented to them might just explain why so many adverts on real TV these days are so sh*t.

The 'Strexy' advert literally made me cringe. The advert for 'Chameleon' didn't make much sense, but it was amusing, had a decent voice over and was what can be expected of a hair gel advert.

I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist and I think these accusations are sometimes very easy to throw about to justify decisions we don't quite get, however I do think a lot of Lord Sugar's decisions of who to fire, (in the earlier stages before we get down to the last few candidates) often revolve around keeping the more entertaining candidates in to make good TV.

So, for example, he'll often fire the more steady, middle-of-the-road candidates over the calamitous, awful candidates, or really outspoken candidates, because someone like Navdeep doesn't make such entertaining viewing.

Navdeep had only lost 2 tasks to Andrew's 5 and as I think she herself said, that isn't just a coincidence. Fair enough if the scores were 4-3, it could have come down to a bit of luck here or there but when you've won 3 more tasks than someone else, out of 6, you are more than likely a far stronger candidate, which she was.

A good example is David, from earlier in the series. He was one of the worst candidates I've seen on any Apprentice, he just seemed to be a nervous, bumbling wreck who could barely string a sentence together, let alone make a sensible decision, yet he lasted to week 5, presumably because he made entertaining viewing.

Also, Maria. I can't tell still if she's good or not, but someone like her is never going to be fired early on, as you know week on week that her outspoken ways are going to provide much of the hour's worth of footage for the show.

I'm not sure if these decisions would be solely down to Lord Sugar thinking what makes good telly, or whether there are producers/directors or whatever, who have a quiet word in his ear as to which candidates are good for viewing figures.

The wrong team won tonight, can't believe that Patrick is still in the competition and Ashleigh was as annoying and bossy as she has been throughout, trying to champion this strong Woman persona.

As to the team that lost, Navdeep deserved to go. She offered nothing and is essentially a background character, until someone needs to make a speech in which she steps forward. Yes she said she didn't like the idea, but what idea's did she offer in return. I think Andrew had it spot on, that she was looking for a way to throw him under the bus, by opposing the decisions. Andrew's work ethic and idea's saved him.

Remember though the way that these adverts are directed and cast by complete novices, on a tiny budget, they're always going to look amateurish.

I think the point was that Maria's team's advert made sense and matched the branding of the product and got the message across and the packaging was something which would stand out on the shelf.

Whereas, Andrew's team had the conflicted message of blending in/standing out, an advert which as Lord Sugar pointed out, didn't feature any women being attracted to users of the product, just three guys in a changing room and showed the guy who used the product as still being a bit of a loser because he had toilet roll stuck to him, which isn't what an advert should portray at all, an advert should say 'use this product and you'll be amazing.' Also, their packaging which I think they originally intended to be a neon green which would stand out, ended up being a very bland sort of green in the end.

At the end of the day, we don't hear the industry experts' verdict, so as to keep us in suspense, but we have to trust that Lord Sugar does go by their opinion and hasn't altered the outcome for better telly.

Firstly, plurals do not have an apostrophe. I've noticed you making that mistake over and over again. I'm not having a go, just trying to help.

I suppose it depends if you're firing people on the one task or the whole process, (which Lord Sugar seems to change between to suit his own agenda.) If you were firing on the whole process, which he ususally is and really should be by this stage, then you'd need some pretty good reasons to fire someone who has lost 2 out of 6 over someone who has lost 5 out of 6 and I don't really see those reasons.

I don't think it's fair to call Navdeep a 'background character.' Her and Lucy are far quieter than Ashleigh and Maria, but that doesn't mean they are weaker candidates, just because they aren't shouting their views across at every second of the task.

Patrick may as well be furniture

Can we see anything that he's got to offer soon?

Can't believe he remains in the process

I watched this and Chameleon was definitely the better product/ad. Ok it was a bit confused by screwing up the name but Strexy was absolute crap and the ad would not make me wanna buy it. Pretty sure they made that choice as he wants to keep Maria.

The ads are usually rubbish - but Strexy was bad but could've been ok with a bigger budget. Chameleon's concept was deeply contradictory and the ad's premise had more flaws - it showed the product made you a loser! It showed people who own the product just leave it around so other people can nick it. How do you even get to walk past a swimming pool with bog-roll on yr feet anyway, every swimming baths I've been in you don't walk past the pool fully clothed and there's that little paddling pool of foot cleaner you'd to have to dodge. Both ads were poor, 'Strexy' made more sense though.

Another thing - gel in 2012? ts all about wax now isn't it? Or am I out of touch? Gel is tackier than any tackily-designed hairspray.

The words Maria was looking for for her ad were 'mass market' rather than tacky.

The womens' hairspray market is much bigger and she would have shifted more units almost no matter what the ad was as long as the bottle stood out on the shelves and had a catchy name.

The other team shot themselves in the foot going for the 'indie' market - a group of people that try to avoid commercial and typical things as a rule.

Remember last year in the selling cheap tat task one team made an absolute killing using fake tan? Tacky is the way to go!

HATED the "Strexy" rubbish, it was so 80's it was frightening! the can, the make up and hair, really did not expect it to win, but then, as you say, a lot of the ads. on TV are rubbish so maybe that does explain it!

I hate in general all this lowest common denominator stuff they force-feed our kids, especially the girls, "Classy" seems to be a dirty word on ads for teenagers now.

Loved the Ad for Chameleon! ok so the product blurb tied itself in knots, but I loved the "loo roll" bit at the end (which they all laughed at in the preview, prior to denouncing it in the Boardroom!).

I was so convinced Andrew would go that I went and made a cup of tea during the Boardroom Teflon Andrew has taken the mantle of David!

Oh God, Brian WAS a crap idea. But Steven generally does seem to be a good person to have in a brainstorm simply because he is willing to throw in ideas - the animal theme, for instance, came from him. Candidates often point the fingers at each other for having bad ideas, but I'd rather have someone on my team who offers bad ideas over ones who offer none at all.

In six weeks, I don't remember Navdeep coming up with too many ideas herself, merely critiques of others. Of course, that might be due to the way she was edited, but there really was very little evidence of her bringing much to the party other than her polished speaking skills.

Often the worst TV adverts are the most memorable though. Great TV ads often win awards, but often the really bad ones are the ones which shift product. (Those of us of a certain age will still recall the Shake & Vac ads, which were APPALLING - but effective.)

The key to winning the advertising task (as I outlined in my blog recap) is not about producing an ad people like - it's about producing a message which is consistent with all the other aspects of the brand. Strexy stood for 'tacky', but it was consistently tacky. Chameleon never really stood for anything. I preferred Chameleon as a product, but (and I say this as someone who has commissioned TV ads in the past) Strexy had the better campaign.

Agreed. The task is not about judging the product - it's about judging the creativity, consistency and relevance of the ad campaign and the overall branding. In that respect, Strexy was the less bad of the two. And I don't mean that in an insulting way - anyone who thinks they can just walk off the street, create a new brand and a TV ad for it on a shoestring budget in three days is sadly deluded. That's why companies spend hundreds of thousands of pounds and several weeks/months creating ad campaigns - many of which are still rubbish!

To be honest, I thought the right team won but I agree 100% on Patrick. The things is, after his disastrous opening task as PM, he has kept a low profile, won most of the tasks and consequently has not made a repeat trip to the boardroom. Sugar can't fire him if he's not there, but I will be amazed if he isn't fired next week.

I have to say I disagree. I know why it's easy to think that it's on entertainment, it's because often it seems like the entertaining characters stay a long time - but that is because the more entertaining characters tend to be the overly-passionate ones with big personalities, which is what Sugar likes. There are examples of him keeping in the quieter candidates over the louder ones in the early stages - like in the first episode of Series 8, when he fired Bilyana over Katie. Another example is the fourth episode of Series 6 - if it was entertainment based, Jamie would surely have been fired over Melissa.

I imagine that in some countries, such as the USA, it's more entertainment-based, but Sugar always strikes me as someone who makes decisions which are genuinely right for him. If that's not the case, he's a great actor and has me fooled. (And for the record, he doesn't wear an earpiece in the boardroom, it says that on the website.)

I didn't mean literally 'a word in his ear' using an earpiece, I meant I wonder how much the show makers talk things through with Lord Sugar. I mean, the tasks normally last 2 days and feature 4 sub-teams, so there's no way Lord Sugar or even Karen and Nick can see everything which goes on. Do the producers just edit the footage of the task and show Lord Sugar the bits they deem to be relevant?

Just caught up with this on iplayer, can't believe Strexy won it was absolute crap,Maria should be thanking her lucky stars. The ad was atrocious, the shots used, the fact that it was obvious that the model was nowhere near the 2 men (at least make the punches look convincing) the cheesy holding up product and talking scene but mostly the awful MS paint style text used, not professional at all.

Also Navdeep shouldn't have gone. And the Strexy can looked terrible, whilst the Chameleon gel bottle actually looked quite good. What this programme highlights is the fact that Sugar doesn't give a shit about quality and will flog any old tat, tis a shame really but I guess that's business!

I've found it a bit odd that there are only two advisors, yet each team is usually divided into sub-teams as well. I imagine that there is someone else who we don't see informing Lord Sugar of what happens with the sub-team. There's no way he would be able to watch any of the footage before the boardroom, there would be hours and hours of unedited footage, so it would be impossible to find the right bits to watch. Plus, he does do other things besides The Apprentice.

Bernie Nolan v Elsie Tanner

Seconds out, round 2