I know they can fail the task, but surely a true failure is making a loss rather than a profit?

It's zero sum competition though isn't it

The idea is to win the task. If you don't then you fail.

Also there's a sort of argument that the losing team risked less and had a higher ROI so didn't really do much worse than the winning team (although the goal of the task was clear I suppose)

It's a bit annoying how the losing team is arbitrarily deemed a 'failure' when both teams could have done a good job but I suppose that's how the world works

But does a team actually 'Win' against the other team?

Half the time they don't really lose because they are worse than the other team but more because of other factors.

Would Lord Alan consider Amstrad a failure just because it didn't make as much profit as Apple?

If he was on a game show where the actual task was to make the biggest profit, then yes. Biggest profit = winner. Smallest profit = loser.

You are taking it slightly out of context.

I agree in terms of the task, but they were talking about in general and specifically about the Milkshakes.

The milkshakes made a profit, they made most of the money.

If anything failed it was the lack of choice of other items.

Oh I totes agree with you. If it was not for the milkshakes, that team would have failed epically!

I still reckon Neil was culpable. He should have thought of another product to go with the milkshakes, perhaps some kind of food or something.

If they factored in minimum wage for each team member and the rent for the premises for the day, both teams would have lost thousands. So the only way to define failure in this process is which team was less rubbish.

It was Kurts fixation on the milkshakes that led to little else being stocked. Kurt was supposed to buy other stock but didn't which led to Neil's subteam having to get stock at retail price, not wholesale which hit their profits.
Also they ended up with unsold milk due to Kurts overestimation of his potential sales.

Yes it probably was overegged but Kurt was foolish to push his own business plan so hard and it was inevitable the other candidates would punish his opportunism if he didn't come up trumps.

It was a good example of why it can be dangerous to let the 'expert' lead the task (or, in this case, a sub-team). Sometimes knowing more than everyone else can lead to tunnel vision and losing sight of the big picture - which Kurt did - because you get so caught up in wanting to show why your idea is so clever.

In the real world, most big projects are led by an expert project manager or someone with broad business experience. You then use experts as advisors and consultants, or give them specific parts of the projects to lead - you don't appoint them as leader just because they know more than anyone else.

they lost the task, but kurt is being blamed for the wrong stuff

Ive seen far worse overestimation of sales. remmeebr that task where the wasted boxloads of chickens a few years ago?

The waste in the milk was nothing. Milk is cheap, the total milk cost was £40, they used 55% so they only lose £19 worth of milk. PM could have sold the fruits by themselves to get rid of them after realising they werent going to meet the target.

the real issue was that the bought their supplies from a retailer because kurt was so fixated on the milkshake. I also didnt like how kurt try to own everything about the milkshake, kept referring the milkshake takings as his takings, like nobody else in the team did anything to contribute to sales. Not a team player.

By the way a milkshake requires ice cream, thats was not a milk shake, that was a smoothie.

well if you also factor in that it's day1 of trading and going to be poor performance. that balances out.

overheads and running costs were simulated, but so was the complete lack of know how in the business and experience.

the focus on kurts predicted sales for the milkshakes was a complete red herring I thought

if he had predicted the actual sales correctly and they only bought the stock required to make that many then they still wouldn't have won the task as the cost price of the ingredients was less than the margin they lost by anyway

the reason they lost the task was the failure to identify and purchase other products

this was just an example of them jumping on something that looked like a mistake without actually thinking through what it meant to the task overall

... which was also due to Kurt obsessing about milkshakes. Remember that Kurt was charged with buying other stuff, which he refused to do (prompting Karren to remark that Kurt was using the task to showcase his business plan to Lord Sugar).

I'd agree with you that this was the case Neil and Uzma ought to have been making in the boardroom, since taken in isolation, the milkshakes were pretty successful.

LS did say at the start the team that makes the most profit wins. It doesn't matter if its by £1 or £1000. I seem to recall one year a team lost by 98P or something like that?

I think both teams failed to have any focus, if your main target is milkshakes, then sell things that people will want when having a milkshake, like a sandwich or a nice cookie etc, why would anyone want to buy a cabbage and a milkshake. Same with the buffalo, why no sell some nice bread rolls for the burgers, or nice potato's for making nice chips to go with the steak etc

it seems clear to me that both of the guys in the boardroom are potential winners, and Uzma was not. Hence the decision to fire Uzma.

It hardly ever is about just the task.

Kurt worked the hardest on their team and came up with an idea. It really annoyed me that Neil turned on him when he had no other products. They should have stocked the shop with real apple juice, jams, chutneys, biscuits etc. If they had some other produce to bring people in they could have won.

Uzma was useless though.

I agree to an extent, but bear in mind that the task was to set up a farm shop and not a lunch takeaway or a chippy. Therefore selling fruit and veg was a key part of the task, even if it didn't fit with their takeaway items.

As others have said elsewhere, the teams were probably told they had to produce a takeaway item to ensure good footage.

True, I'd assume they were told to make a take-away product, but it should of been better thought out as to what complimentary products they should sell. So Neils team should have aimed more for fruit etc, than veg.

Agreed. There was an alarming lack of joined-up thinking from both teams, really.

But at least the team with the Buffalo meat was selling veg which was at least in the same "ball park"

It seemed to me that the fact they committed fraud on the general public was pretty much glossed over ie selling processed fruit concentrate in a shake which was advertised as fresh farm produce