DS Forums

 
 

What is the incentive for the candidates to do what the producers say?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-12-2012, 16:02
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587

Something has occurred to me lately... one thing that has been discussed frequently is the extent to which the producers control the rules of the tasks. (Someone suggested that they probably told the teams on the most recent task that one had to target the male market and the other had to target the female market etc.) I'm just curious as to why the candidates would actually listen?

Take Task 3, for example. Someone said that they were probably told that they couldn't copy what Zara did last year, and phone a library to find out what the mystery item is. Well, let's say they were told that. How exactly do the producers intend to stop them? They can hardly confiscate the phones, as they use them to phone other places. Once they've done that, the producers might be annoyed, but they'd know what the item was. The same goes for telling them what market to go for. If they go for a different market to what they're told and go in doing a pitch for that, what actually can the producers do about it? I suppose theoretically they could have them removed from the show, but if that was the case I think more people would have mysteriously 'left' than actually have. I think all the people who have left voluntarily have had sound reasoning to do so.


Many of the candidates make it clear in their opening statements that they don't listen to anyone if they think they have the best idea, and we've seen evidence of that on the tasks. I just think would many of them pay any attention to the producers telling them what to do to make good TV? I certainly wouldn't.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 07-12-2012, 17:04
Kyle_Johansen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: St Albans
Posts: 83
For one thing the producers pay the driver that drives them.
Kyle_Johansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 17:06
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
For one thing the producers pay the driver that drives them.
Do you mean they pay Lord Sugar? Well yes they do, but they're hardly going to stop paying him and cancel the series because someone went over their heads, are they?
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 17:07
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
For one thing the producers pay the driver that drives them.
Oh sorry, I guess you meant the actual taxi driver? Well, if the taxi driver plays up, they can surely use that as a defence in the boardroom.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 17:36
Kyle123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,385
I'd imagine that the penalty would depend on the nature of the rule break, but in the two examples you gave, I'd imagine that they would probably end up losing any profit that they made from that rule break. (Which could result in them losing the task)

So for example, if they found out from the library what one of the items was, then I guess producers could just charge the team double the list price for that item, regardless of what the team actually got the item for, or something along those lines.
Kyle123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 17:37
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
I'd imagine that the penalty would depend on the nature of the rule break, but in the two examples you gave, I'd imagine that they would probably end up losing any profit that they made from that rule break. (Which could result in them losing the task)

So for example, if they found out from the library what one of the items was, then I guess producers could just charge the team double the list price for that item, regardless of what the team actually got the item for, or something along those lines.
I don't think that's fair. They should be able to do whatever to win the task... if it's unethical that's Lord Sugar's call (like in the first episode of Series 2), if it's just about making a good programme then it's not fair to call a penalty on it.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 17:51
Kyle123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,385
I don't think that's fair. They should be able to do whatever to win the task... if it's unethical that's Lord Sugar's call (like in the first episode of Series 2), if it's just about making a good programme then it's not fair to call a penalty on it.
I suppose it isn't really fair, but at the very least, both teams would be under the same set of limitations. Plus, I like it when candidates are able to think outside of the box to get around the rules. (Presumably Zara was told what she could not do last year for example, but had the sense to call the library, which seems so obvious, but so many past teams didn't have that idea in previous seasons)

I just find it easier to take the Apprentice with a pinch of salt these days. Everything about it is about making the superior television programme, from what footage they show, which candidates are shown as good or bad, and who ultimately gets eliminated at the end of the week. Rules of the task probably limit contestants more than they need to, but there are several other things that annoy me more!
Kyle123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2012, 01:55
martenla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Northants
Posts: 1,491
Telling them not to phone a library might well have been a rule and if it was I imagine the teams didn't have a problem respecting it. They could break any number of rules if they wanted to, but they're bright enough to know they need to win without cheating. If they had broken a rule it would mean an unfair advantage and I'm sure there would have been repercussions.

I'm wary of speculating about behind the scenes stuff for which there is no evidence - such as producers giving them a target market. I imagine they are guided a little and given a selection of demographics to choose from, but to me it just looked like one team thought women's hair care was 'saturated' and Maria is very into her 'strong women' theme and seems keen on pink, so it was an obvious choice. I see no reason why they couldn't both have pitched a product to the same gender, it's not as if they were going to produce an identical product and advert.
martenla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2012, 18:59
cookie_365
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brighton
Posts: 574
Is this thread serious?

The producers, who pick the tasks, act as the conduit between the candidates and any specialist help they get, edit the footage, pretty much can decide who wins each task, can influence if pretty much decide who Suggs fires, can kick any candidate off the show?

No, I can't see how they could possibly have any leverage over an uncooperative candidate.
cookie_365 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2012, 19:18
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
Is this thread serious?

The producers, who pick the tasks, act as the conduit between the candidates and any specialist help they get, edit the footage, pretty much can decide who wins each task, can influence if pretty much decide who Suggs fires, can kick any candidate off the show?

No, I can't see how they could possibly have any leverage over an uncooperative candidate.
Yes, I'm afraid it is serious.

The producers:
Pick the tasks - yes, but discuss it with Sugar along the way.
Act as the conduit between the candidates and any specialist help they get - yes.
Edit the footage - yes, but that's irrelevant as it comes later.
Decide who wins each task - really? I thought that had more to do with how much the teams sell or which retailers likes their idea/service/product. If they decide who wins the tasks, the whole show is a sham.
Decide who Sugar fires - no. There is an FAQ on the site that explains all that. Sugar completely decides on his own merit, and does not wear an earpiece in the boardroom so cannot be fed anything by the producers. Unless the BBC are telling downright lies, and I have more belief in them than that.
Can kick any candidate off the show - well, in theory they can, but how often does that happen? Let's look at the past candidates who have left the series without being fired and their reasons, to see if any could have been removed by producers:

Adele Lock - quit in Week 4 for personal reasons, and knew she was going to be fired anyway. (Almost certainly genuine, as the pressure was seen to be getting to her, and she made an impassioned speech about being fed up.)
Katie Hopkins - quit at the end of the interview stage. (Genuine, as there would have been no point removing her that late in the contest.)
Adam Freeman - quit Series 5 before it started, because he didn't want to leave his family for so long. (Could have been set up for some reason, but if he was, it wouldn't have been for breaking the rules, as he didn't take part in any tasks.)
Adam Eliaz - quit in Week 3 due to illness. (Could have been set up, there are rumours that he was.)
Raleigh Addington - quit before the start of Week 2 to be with his brother, who was injured in Afghanistan. (Genuine - it is a verifiable fact that Captain Ed Addington had this injury at the time of filming, and Raleigh talked about it on You're Fired!).

So out of all the people who have left, only the two Adams could possibly have been set up by the producers, and only Adam Eliaz could potentially have been removed for breaking rules, as Adam Freeman left before it started. Out of 142 candidates, I think more than one would have been removed by the producers if they were happy to remove people who caused trouble.

Therefore, I believe the only one of your points that could make a difference is the point about the producers organising the specialist help etc. That is actually a good point, but I think that if you are bright enough and understand what you are doing enough, you should be able to handle all that without the specialist help, as a last resort.

If I was on the show and a producer told me to do something that I didn't think would help me win the task, I would probably ignore it. Why make the task more difficult for myself just to make good TV? I'd never go on the show anyway as I'm not business-minded so that's all hypothetical, I'm just imagining myself as a candidate.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 05:00
KillerJoe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,771
I read something before from a Britains got talent live show finalist who got cornered into performing a song they didn't want to sing because of producers saying simon cowell would prefer it..

I'd imagine something similar happens on the apprentice, I'd think perhaps the producers say 'look, we have a list of demographics to target, we have focus groups on stand by, you can't do *this one* as it's already chosen by the other team' that'd seem plausible due to time constraints. As for the ringing a library, they could've been told Lord Sugar wasn't at all impressed with Zara doing it last year and would be best to avoid it to throw them off doing it
KillerJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 11:24
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
I read something before from a Britains got talent live show finalist who got cornered into performing a song they didn't want to sing because of producers saying simon cowell would prefer it..

I'd imagine something similar happens on the apprentice, I'd think perhaps the producers say 'look, we have a list of demographics to target, we have focus groups on stand by, you can't do *this one* as it's already chosen by the other team' that'd seem plausible due to time constraints. As for the ringing a library, they could've been told Lord Sugar wasn't at all impressed with Zara doing it last year and would be best to avoid it to throw them off doing it
Oh yeah, I hadn't thought of that. I guess the odd bright candidate would take what the producers say with a pinch of salt, but it happens infrequently enough for them to actually do anything about it.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:39.