What I meant was they were both tasks that took place abroad, and supposedly the climax and highlight of the two respective series.

I think you're wrong on Series 9... Neil didn't have a credible business plan in LS's eyes, and so if you're including him, you should include Jordan also, on the basis that he may not have had a good plan, but was a credible candidate. I also feel that Alex and Myles were strong candidates.

And like it or not, most people watch the Apprentice for the candidates' incompetence, and I know that that shouldn't be the case but it is, and that's the image the producers have tried to convey in every series apart from Series 1, with the editing: just listen to the music, and the way things are edited. If they were trying to highlight a good business message, instead of firing someone each episode, and LS pointing out as many flaws as he possibly can in the losing team's strategy, they wouldd get the winning team in, and study why that team did so well and won the task.

Series 3 was my favourite so far as well, with the unforgettable Tre.

I don't think Neil's business plan was poor in itself. The problem with it was that it had flaws, which Neil was too proud to acknowledge. Lord Sugar had time for it and was absolutely willing to work through the issues with Neil, but Neil was so convinced that it was perfect the way it was that Lord Sugar had no choice but to turn it down. Jordan's plan was different, because it wasn't even his business and he wasn't playing by the rules, so there was no way he could ever have won.


I disagree. That has come up in lots of interviews with Lord Sugar, and he said that if they really thought the candidates were incompetent, they should come to auditions and see the calibre of the people who are turned down. There are people with crazy hair and jewellery and things who are clearly just in it to make a name for themselves. The candidates are obviously picked partly on an entertainment level, but the vast majority of them have had some success in business before appearing on the show, and I think that most of the time the mistakes that are made are more as a result of the format (the technicalities of the tasks such as having to do something that would normally take weeks in two days, and the immensely high levels of stress) than of the ineptitude of the candidates. Of course those things are included in the edits because they're fun to chortle at, but that isn't what the show is about. The show is about finding someone who is really decent to go into business with Lord Sugar (or, previously, to get a job with him).

That is pretty much explained in the descriptions of the show. The candidates are still referred to as the 'entrepreneurial elite' and such things in the commentary by the narrator, and it's described as a very difficult process. To me, that says it all. It's not the candidates who are rubbish, it's the process that is exceptionally difficult, and no one is going to do an incredible job on the tasks because they are impossible to do well at by definition. The contest though is about seeing how they are handled, and envisioning those candidates in an actual situation, and thinking, 'Can they be impressive?' It's very easy to think it's all about incompetent candidates, but that's not what the programme is about, otherwise they'd get the same kind of sample of candidates that you get on Big Brother (I say that with some degree of humility as I have auditioned for Big Brother and did quite well, but then again you wouldn't see me going on The Apprentice either).

Obviously Sugar would want it to be abiout competence, because he's the one who has to invest in them!
And of course they're all good business people, but the ones with big/different personalities are picked, and as yyou say, the process is exceptionally difficult, and so the candidates fail in some areas, and these failures are always magnified by the producers, but of course they try to get a good balance, which they normally acheive, and that's the way I like it.


I still think Series 9's standard is higher than you make it out to be

They generally do get a good balance, yes. I feel that some of the series haven't so much though, specifically Series 3, 4 and 9.

I feel there are so many components to a good series... I summarised them in another thread, and I'll do it again, with bulletpoints:

* Candidates: There has to be some competent ones (some of whom go on journeys, some of whom start of well, but tail off, and some of whom are consistent throughout), there has to be ones with big personalities, and we have to see strong, coherenent interactions between characters, which are shown and developed throughout the series (Lucinda vs Helene for example), and there has to be some likeable, some unlikeable. It is also best if it's a diverse bunch.

* Tasks: There has to be a good range of tasks, which are fun to watch, testing a variety of skills, and if there's ones which are a bit different liek the away-day one then that's even better.

* Competence: There has to be a theme of business nouse throughout the series, with moments of genius.

* Incompetence: There has to be those moments where people bomb, and you're thinking 'how can you be doing that?!'

* Memorable moments: There has to be things that stick in your mind, like massive arguments, terrible TV ads, funny quotes etc...

* Spontaneity: If there is no spontaniety, we always know what's coming next, and it gets boring. When things like LS calling Jason back in to congratulate him, it keeps you guessing as to what happens next.

And, alll of this has to run through the series!

It might sound like a tough thing to fulfil, but most of the series have ticked all these boxes, even in small amounts... The only one I can think of which doesn't fulfil some of these criteria is Series 8...

I'd tend to agree with you, aside from your comments on Series 8, which I genuinely really enjoyed. I think that Series 8 had some fantastic red herrings for the long-term fans, as some things were edited in a way that in previous series typically would lead to a certain outcome, and then were turned on their heads completely.

I also think that it's important not to view competent and entertaining as being mutually exclusive. Of course it's important that the programme is watchable enough for the viewers to enjoy, but at the same time there are so many people over the years (Saira, Katie Hopkins, James McQuillan, Zoe Plummer, Luisa and loads of others) who have been really entertaining, and also very capable performers. I think that capable performers ought to be the priority, but it is so possible to do that and also have a suitable variety of candidates for the viewing public.

I think that producers do focus on the silly moments and sometimes criticisms from Nick and Karen are too harsh. However, sometimes the performance could not be described as clever in any way like the corporate away task in Season 9 where each team showed little creativity or common sense. I got the sense that candidates like Francesca and Jason were desperately out of depth to be on the program using Season 9 as an example and I wonder how they get through.

I never understood why Karren was so harsh about Susan Ma's 'Are the French very fond of their children?' query. It was only in a brainstorm, and it was obvious that she was actually questioning whether they are inclined to impulsively buy things for their children (different cultures bring up their children differently) as opposed to questioning whether they love them generally, and in my opinion that was a very sensible thing to be asking.

I agree with that. It was blown out of context when it was just not worded very eloquently. She definitely did not like Suzie and in season 9 for example, I think she really disliked Jordan. You can sense from how she is more critical of specific people than others.

I think it adds something to it when you consider that English was not Susan's first language either.

Well it sounded ignorant, so I can understand why Karren was bewildered, but yes, she was overly harsh.

I didn't think it sounded ignorant. There are various schools of thought regarding how to bring children up, and some cultures don't really buy things for their children at all, aside from practical and necessary things. Susan didn't know that much about French culture, so naturally that was something that she wanted to know. It's the same with 'Do the French drive?' She obviously wasn't suggesting that there was not a single person in France who drove a car, but there is more traffic in some countries than in others. For example, I would never choose something involving cars to sell in Denmark - of course there are people there who drive, but generally it is a nation that does a lot of travelling by bike, and also they have a very cheap and efficient public transport service, so for that nation it would be a poor choice. That's the sort of thing Susan was trying to find out. She wasn't wording it perfectly, but it was a brainstorm and everyone knew what she meant. I don't know why Karren made a point about it.

Regarding there being various of schools of thought about bringing up children, that's not what she said... All she said was 'are the French very fond of their chipdren', which in my opinion does sound ignorant, as does 'do the French drive'. As Karren said, you really don't need to he an expert on France to know that cars are widely used in France. That may not have been exactly what she meant, but that is what she said.

But it was a brainstorm... she obviously would think it out a little bit more if you were pitching or actually talking to a French person, but at a brainstorm, she was focussing on speed over semantics and everyone knew what she meant. Besides, everyone has fluffed their words at some point - can you honestly say that you've never said something slightly wrong? I know I have. With Susan, English wasn't even her first language, and she still spoke it quite a bit better than people who have been born here.

It still sounded ignorant. I'm not sure how you can argue against that.

It only sounds ignorant if you take the words that she said entirely out of context. If you're in on the situation - yes, it may come across as though she misspoke slightly, but it was entirely obvious what she meant. In a brainstorm, you surely don't have to think about the precise words that you're saying the whole time. So long as you're making progress and everyone knows what you're talking about, I don't see what is wrong with phrasing something slightly wrongly. But the way Karren was talking about it, it sounded as though she'd just questioned whether the French have heads, or something like that.

I disagree, but this is just going round in circles.

So, bearing in mind that comments from advisors should be strictly neutral and related to task performance, do you think it was reasonable that Karren was that disparaging over what essentially came down to someone stumbling over their words, when the intentions were very clear and actually very sensible? (If you disagree that what Susan meant was clear we can discuss that, but so far you haven't said anything to suggest that you do think that.)

It was reasonable to an extent yes,

And I don't think what Susan said was [i]that[I/] clear. She said what she said.

It's really an opinion thing anyway, so there's no real point in discussing it.

Well, maybe I'm just quite good at determining what people mean. It was obvious to me what she meant, and I think it should have been to Karren as well.

If you're going to go by the notion that there is no point discussing personal opinions, that entirely negates the point of this forum.

It wasn't that clear but it didn't matter. Susan wasn't talking in front of customers or clients - it was her own individual thought process that led to her picking the task winning product. She shouldn't have to adjust her thought process for Karren and as it had no negative impact on the task whatsoever, Karren shouldn't have brought it up and she certainly shouldn't have humiliated Susan in front of the group for it, after what had been a very good task performance from Susan. That was one of the most unprofessional moments in Apprentice history IMO and one if the few instances in which an adviser was biased against a candidate and tried to discredit them (Nick and Debra in Series 5 Week 6 was another instance of this)

I just watched Series 9 Episode 11, and Neil's business plan wasn't just a little bit flawed, the fundamental concept was flawed, and was unworkable.

It was basically just a website, which allowed people to sell their own homes. Selling your own home is a lot of hassle, especially having to do the viewings yourself. That was a flaw in itself. The way he would make money would be to have estate agents advertise their properties on Neil's website - why would they do that?! The whole thing didn't work.

So George, in that list you have of the four Series 9 credible candidates, if you're going to include Neil, you should include Jordan.

Maybe I need to re-watch Series 9, as I have actually only seen that episode once. Am I not right in thinking that Lord Sugar gave him an opportunity to work with him to fine-tune the business plan so that it did work, but Neil was too arrogant to listen to what was being said? I might have made that up, I just seem to remember it happening.

The interviewers certainly asked him about a Plan B on numerous occasions, but he refused to change.