Instead of these show off numpties? With a bit of research they could target capable, intelligent, creative people and make it a much better show.

That what happened last year - it was labelled boring.

I think a lot of it's to do with the edit. They probably have plenty enough material to make any one of them look like either a complete numpty or an absolute star, they just choose to do edit stuff for entertainment which includes more bulnders than successes.

I'd like a another series done like series 1 (although I know it will probably not happen) where the focus was more on the business decisions and the funny/entertaining moments filled themselves in around them.

I think that has happened quite a few times since Series 1. I think that Series 5, Series 7, Series 8 and the first two series of Young Apprentice have generally followed that.

I think you're underestimating how difficult most of the tasks are. Coming up with a concept for a dating site, creating from scratch the name, logo, ad, website and pitch in a couple of days? It's incredibly unlikely that any team is ever going to do anything that's genuinely good in the time when they have no experience (and all think they are Hitchcock). Added to that that you'd have to be a particular kind of person to go in for the show, usually, and most of them think that they can't afford to show any weakness or ask any questions, and it's not surprising they all look like idiots. Which is the point of the show, let's be honest.

I think that's a very good point. Also, if you look back at Series 1, they were clearly allowed so much more help with the tasks than they are now. Like on the advertising task, some of the staff at Amstrad were on hand to make suggestions and help with the project. On the farming task, one of the teams got a chef to give them loads of ideas and to help make the produce. The format of the tasks has changed a bit.

I agree, but one has to bear in mind that this is a ''reality'' show. This programme has become car crash television - the most irritating (according to edit) candidates bring the ratings up. It's the nature of the beast.

True a lot of reality show watchers on ds don't move with the times and yearn back for the good old days

I'm not sure what it is then. I just know that when watching series 1, I found what went on very transparent, all of Sugar's decisions made sense (to a large degree) and everyone's level of competence in different areas were shown in a balanced way leaving myself to judge who I liked/thought was competent instead of people being made out to be heroes or villains. I just haven't seen that in any of the other series. 8 came closest though.

I think that Lord Sugar's decisions generally make sense to some degree - in that he always knows why they are made - but the editing doesn't make it clear to the viewer who should go. They probably do it to add suspense and make it harder to predict the outcome, but the earlier series were a lot less biased in showing what went on. I think if we saw all the footage of what happened, Lord Sugar's decisions would generally make a lot more sense.

I haven't seen series 1, but I also have the feeling that his decisions this year don't make sense. He's talking all the time about his gut feeling this, his gut feeling that...

He's looking at a variety of things. Some people have been tested explicitly on what they are proposing to do and gone when they failed on those related tasks . Tim, Zee and Jason for example did that. Some people he thinks are not showing him enough - thats a bit suspect because they may be fine in their own areas. Some people he may think he can't work with, or are likely to make big mistakes if left alone. Ultimately, it should come down to whose idea he finds acceptable because it won't be negative for his reputation, what fields he feels happy in , and who he thinks can deliver. A lot of that is instinct. He also has to make the judgement on how people will be with him, and anyone else they will have to work with. Likeability may be less important than it was with the old job, but he doesn't want people who annoy him, or frighten the suppliers or buyers.Thats why someone like Luisa treads a thin line between arguing loudly with the other candidates, and being very polite and quieter speaking to him - the ability not to actually annoy him may be crucial.

They're normal people, some like Alex are way ahead of what anyone else his age has done. Everyone left now are all pretty solid people

Any who genuinely thinks they are incompetent and and are not just saying it to 1 up themselves is not actually using their brain to think about the tasks and format

Quite. The teams are thrown in at the deep end and asked to do in a couple of days what a team of experts would normally take weeks to do.

But that's the nature of the show. The teams are set up to fail because that's what's deemed to make for interesting TV. Even some of the 'hidden' task rules are intentionally designed to create conflict and failure: you must work in two sub-teams not one big team, you must ask a vendor for a discount, you can't use the internet to look up what an oud is.

The Apprentice stopped being a pure business show a long time ago (if indeed it ever was), and whereas last year was criticised for being too much business and not enough entertainment, this year it's the other way round.

The show was never about actual business, it was always a joke and highlighted the candidates' inadequacies and failures, which is part of what makes it so brilliant tbh. Been that way since series 1 idk why people try to act like it was ever a legitimate business programme.

I should have said 'pretending;' rather than 'being' in my earlier post. While it's never been all about business, the balance used to be different. The first series in particular did try to teach some (very) basic business lessons. In the first few series, we would see more of what teams were doing to win the task as well as their mistakes. Now it's all about the mistakes.

Well, in that case, why is the prize a job or a business investment? If it wasn't about actual business, they could just say that the prize is £250,000 to do - whatever with, really. Buy a house with it if you want.

One of the main reasons they don't have applicants from "capable" people is because the capable ones are out there making a success of their careers/business.
It makes me smile to hear the CVs of some applicants saying they handle "multi-million pound deals" and such like.
If that's the case why are they applying for this step down position with Sugar
People who can,do. People who can't, apply for the Apprentice.

To be fair, they have had lots of capable people. Helen Milligan, Susan Ma, Nick Holzherr, Jade Nash in recent years. Even this year, Luisa is capable, regardless of people's personal opinions of her. Neil is capable, Leah is capable, Jordan is capable...

As people have said though, even if you are capable, when you're under this much scrutiny it is immensely difficult. I always remember something that Zoe Beresford said on You're Fired! You watch the programme at home and you always think, 'I could do better than these idiots!' But when you're actually on the programme, you're surprised at how difficult it is to simultaneously come to the forefront and not screw up the tasks...

This task is a good case in point, but it's also the case with most other tasks. None of the candidates had any experience in market research or advertising, and yet they were asked to create a concept they were mostly unfamiliar with, do focus groups and then produce an ad. In two days.

In the real world, this takes weeks of hard work involving many experts.

You would use a research agency to conduct several focus groups in advance, plus you'd do a load of desk research too. In many cases (if the budget is big enough) you might well test the first cut of the ad itself with focus groups too. You wouldn't just rely on a quick chat conducted by a couple of amateurs with a few people in a pub.

You would then use an advertising agency to come up with the creative based on your brand strategy and insights from the focus group. This, again, is hardly the work of a few hours. And obviously the ad itself wouldn't be shot in a couple of hours on a shoestring budget.

We can laugh at how awful the end result is, but the point is that it's always going to be awful. If it was that easy, then market research companies and advertising agencies wouldn't exist, would they?

I'll add Stella to the list of capables, she was very impressive.

Completely agree; truly capable people don't need The Apprentice to be successful..

The CV's are designed so that they stand out I suppose but it does lead to barely believable hyperbole. It is easy to exaggerate one's involvement in something though; I have been involved in multi-million pound deals. Would I say I 'handled' or 'led' them though? No.

But there have been people who have done really well for themselves as a result of their experiences on The Apprentice. The winners obviously, but lots of others. Helen Milligan got a massive promotion in her job. Susan Ma ended up working with Lord Sugar. Zoe Plummer became the youngest shop owner in the country. Harry Hitchens is apparently doing all right for himself, judging from what he says on his YouTube channel. Obviously there are also lots of people who haven't; it obviously depends on how you actually do on the programme. But I wouldn't say that any of those four examples are not 'truly successful'.

There is a lot of truth in that, but it's also important to remember that these are mostly people at the outset of their business careers - they run a small online business or a cake shop or they're a high-performing salesperson - and a long way from being the finished article. How many people in their early to mid-20s could honestly say that they don't need Sugar's money to help them take that next step, or even the potential boost that just being on the show can bring? (Whether they'd want to put themselves through the likely humiliation is another matter!)

I find it interesting how a lot of the time, the candidates on Young Apprentice tend to be a bit more professional and focussed than the candidates on the adult show. Even on the third series of YA, which seemed to have less credible people than Series 1 and 2, there were still quite a few people who stood out as good bets. Is that because they just chose people who were generally a bit better for YA, or is there another reason?