She mentioned her business plan in an interview for HolyMoly. I think it was just food and drink, the same business she happened to be running at the time. The one that went under. Worth checking, though, if anyone's got a few minutes.
Series Eight
2 of 2
Hmm, agree with many of the points in the thread, disagree with others.
I'm somewhere in the middle ground. I don't think series 8 was as dull as many make it out to be, nor do I think that this year's candidates are as hare-brained as they are being made to look.
Last year's finalists weren't the most interesting bunch as a whole - but then that's the same most years, as the 'big' characters always tend to fall in the week or two before the final - Adam Corbally last year, Stuart Baggs, Tre Azam and so on. As Monkseal says, there were some poorly thought through tasks - the fitness equipment one was 'won' by Stephen throwing in lots of freebies which didn't count against him as the task was measured on orders only, not profit. But then season 7 had Jedi Jim Eastwood offering to promote his crappy biscuits with a multi-million pound campaign which was clearly implausible in the real world - again, as it was based on orders, he bent the rules rather badly here.
Similarly, some of the narratives were odd. I'm still waiting for Jane vs Duane to kick off.
This year's candidates are doing some very silly things - but then they do silly things every year. What we're seeing is a complete lack of coverage of candidates doing good things that help win the task. It's almost all the bad stuff we're being shown, so there's no balance. That's not the candidates - that's the editors' choice, which in turn starts with the producers' direction as to how they want candidates to be portrayed to fulfill this year's various narratives.
All this means that I'm finding it harder than usual this year to spot who the good candidates are, simply because we see so little of anyone looking competent. Most of the surviving candidates have had good moments, but too many of them have been shown only as not making lots of mistakes. In the past, it wasn't too difficult to identify most of the finalists early on: Tom P, Tom G, Helen, Stella and so on.
This is at odds with the whole premise of the show. Successful entrepreneurs are not by nature people who avoid mistakes - they are the ones who takes risks, have moments of genius, and act decisively to correct the mistakes that are an inevitable part of taking risks. Ask any truly successful entrepreneur, and if they are being honest they will tell you that mistakes are part of the process - they make you better if you learn from them.
Anyway, back to the original question. Series 8 is relatively low down on my list of favourite series. It was more flawed than most, less entertaining than many, but also one of the more business-focussed ones of recent years. I'd probably put it ahead of series 3 and 5, but behind most of the rest.
I'm somewhere in the middle ground. I don't think series 8 was as dull as many make it out to be, nor do I think that this year's candidates are as hare-brained as they are being made to look.
Last year's finalists weren't the most interesting bunch as a whole - but then that's the same most years, as the 'big' characters always tend to fall in the week or two before the final - Adam Corbally last year, Stuart Baggs, Tre Azam and so on. As Monkseal says, there were some poorly thought through tasks - the fitness equipment one was 'won' by Stephen throwing in lots of freebies which didn't count against him as the task was measured on orders only, not profit. But then season 7 had Jedi Jim Eastwood offering to promote his crappy biscuits with a multi-million pound campaign which was clearly implausible in the real world - again, as it was based on orders, he bent the rules rather badly here.
Similarly, some of the narratives were odd. I'm still waiting for Jane vs Duane to kick off.
This year's candidates are doing some very silly things - but then they do silly things every year. What we're seeing is a complete lack of coverage of candidates doing good things that help win the task. It's almost all the bad stuff we're being shown, so there's no balance. That's not the candidates - that's the editors' choice, which in turn starts with the producers' direction as to how they want candidates to be portrayed to fulfill this year's various narratives.
All this means that I'm finding it harder than usual this year to spot who the good candidates are, simply because we see so little of anyone looking competent. Most of the surviving candidates have had good moments, but too many of them have been shown only as not making lots of mistakes. In the past, it wasn't too difficult to identify most of the finalists early on: Tom P, Tom G, Helen, Stella and so on.
This is at odds with the whole premise of the show. Successful entrepreneurs are not by nature people who avoid mistakes - they are the ones who takes risks, have moments of genius, and act decisively to correct the mistakes that are an inevitable part of taking risks. Ask any truly successful entrepreneur, and if they are being honest they will tell you that mistakes are part of the process - they make you better if you learn from them.
Anyway, back to the original question. Series 8 is relatively low down on my list of favourite series. It was more flawed than most, less entertaining than many, but also one of the more business-focussed ones of recent years. I'd probably put it ahead of series 3 and 5, but behind most of the rest.
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“HAs Monkseal says, there were some poorly thought through tasks - the fitness equipment one was 'won' by Stephen throwing in lots of freebies which didn't count against him as the task was measured on orders only, not profit.”
“HAs Monkseal says, there were some poorly thought through tasks - the fitness equipment one was 'won' by Stephen throwing in lots of freebies which didn't count against him as the task was measured on orders only, not profit.”
Was that the one with the 70s style fitness promo video? Funniest thing i've ever seen on the Apprentice, maybe ever on tv
Edit - Groove Train!
Originally Posted by blueisthecolour:
“Was that the one with the 70s style fitness promo video? Funniest thing i've ever seen on the Apprentice, maybe ever on tv
Edit - Groove Train!”
“Was that the one with the 70s style fitness promo video? Funniest thing i've ever seen on the Apprentice, maybe ever on tv
Edit - Groove Train!”
Yes, that's the one. The video was great - although I can't get the image of Azhar's tight orange shorts out of my head - but the way Stephen gained the crucial winning order by basically throwing all the equipment in for free (thereby handing over what little profit they would have made in the real world, and then some) effectively circumvented the task rules, so it was a horribly unfair win in my eyes.
Groove Train, though - heh.
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“Yes, that's the one. The video was great - although I can't get the image of Azhar's tight orange shorts out of my head - but the way Stephen gained the crucial winning order by basically throwing all the equipment in for free (thereby handing over what little profit they would have made in the real world, and then some) effectively circumvented the task rules, so it was a horribly unfair win in my eyes.
Groove Train, though - heh.”
“Yes, that's the one. The video was great - although I can't get the image of Azhar's tight orange shorts out of my head - but the way Stephen gained the crucial winning order by basically throwing all the equipment in for free (thereby handing over what little profit they would have made in the real world, and then some) effectively circumvented the task rules, so it was a horribly unfair win in my eyes.
Groove Train, though - heh.”
I've always found the way they score the tasks a bit ropey. I mean last week all they cared about was total sales - rather than the profit generated from those sales. It didn't matter in the end, but had one team discounted a camper van down to basically cost price they could have technically won the task on higher sales despite the profit being non-existent.
Originally Posted by blueisthecolour:
“I've always found the way they score the tasks a bit ropey. I mean last week all they cared about was total sales - rather than the profit generated from those sales. It didn't matter in the end, but had one team discounted a camper van down to basically cost price they could have technically won the task on higher sales despite the profit being non-existent.”
“I've always found the way they score the tasks a bit ropey. I mean last week all they cared about was total sales - rather than the profit generated from those sales. It didn't matter in the end, but had one team discounted a camper van down to basically cost price they could have technically won the task on higher sales despite the profit being non-existent.”
Yep, there's a balance to be struck between keeping things simple so that viewers can understand it and having it so simple that it's easy to abuse the process.
In last week's task I think using sales as the measure was okay, as both teams had to pre-agree the maximum level of discount with each vendor, which prevented them from selling right down to cost price (or even below!)
Personally, I like it when they measure the business as a going concern: those tasks where they add cash in hand to stock value at the end of the day. That's the closest to how you value a business in real life, although as a measurement it's not necessarily applicable to all tasks. (It wouldn't have worked on this task, for instance.)
2 of 2
