Firstly, while I don't doubt the effort was made, I feel it was made in the wrong places. I can't see the appeal of a website and characters for a simple biscuit that has so many competitors. It's extremely unrealistic that anyone over the age of 10 would buy into it.

Secondly, I stated in the task brief that the aim of the task was to demonstrate a creative touch, so yes, it was required. It shouldn't really have to be stated for a task like this when it's glaringly obvious that creativity is of utmost importance.

May I be cheeky and ask why you find it unrealistic that an over 10 year old would buy a biscuit tasty biscuit?

As for the 'creative touch' I'll accept that was on the brief. BUT you didn't list 'creativity' or 'originality' as things you were judging the products on!

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying. I agree that there were mistakes made and we are culpable for the failure of this task.

I think she means that no one over the age of ten would buy into our characters/storylines etc.

As for why I don't feel I should be fired. I'll wait until the final boardroom for that.

I was referring to the website and the characters, which you state is for 7-16 year olds and that it's highly unlikely that anyone of secondary school age would sit down at their computer on this kind of website.

I've heard enough now. David, which two candidates are you bring back to the final boardroom with you?

Yeah; I got that...

I was more implying why there's an assumption that children over the age of 10 wouldn't want to buy a product because it had a website (which wouldn't impact a purchase) It's not like you have to sign up to the website to buy the biscuit.

& the greater age appeal for Wizards of Waverly Place is 12-16 year olds, so I can't imagine the design of wizards would significantly lower the chances of it selling.

I appreciate your opinion, but as I said in my reply to anactoria's question, my personal experience is that older children do buy into things like that. Also, our target market are becoming increasingly internet-savvy and actually do get targeted by online ad campaigns everyday, particularly if they are part of social media sites.

I felt that the website would be a good way to create and sustain longevity and popularity with the product, and other members of my team considered it a good idea.

Like I said, I do appreciate that not everyone agrees with us on that point.

That was quick!

First let me start by saying... I don't think ANYBODY deserves to be fired from our team on the sole basis that it is unfair for anybody on the team to go before somebody on the other team who not only didn't show up, went offline after being delegated a task and didn't tell ANYBODY that he wasn't going to do it. Then he 'goes out' for the night of the Boardroom but, shockingly, he signs on to msn less than a minute after his team is called as a winner. THAT is who should be fired for this task, regardless of victory or not. Somebody who doesn't want to be here shouldn't be given credit over people who want to be here.

That being said... the two people I'm bringing back are...

George - Whilst I don't personally see the problem in it, he has a way of winding people up. I'm not sure if it's his enthusiasm, or his overly declarative voice... His work was the only work that was significantly edited.

Secondly, the person I'm bringing back is between two people who I feel put in the least amount of work. However of the two I'm going to pick NarutoFan. It was also his idea to use Greggs which, although I backed, seems to be a large hole in our marketing strategy.

Thank you David. The rest of you may leave the boardroom, see you on the next task.

Thank you! Good luck to you three!

I'd like to start by asking David this. If you were to PM this task again, what would you do differently?

Naruto, how do you feel about your PM's insinuation that you weren't involved enough? What was your logic behind suggesting Greggs?

If I were to PM this task again, I would make it apparent that I wanted the creativity to be more of a focus, since that is where we lost it!

However apart from that, I feel I PM'ed very strongly & this loss is more of a reflection of the concept than my inability to PM, or a failure in the team.

George, do you feel you were treated unfairly by the rest of the team, as my advisor suggests?

I disagree with myself being bought back in. I know it may have been difficult, but i certainly did not put in the least amount of work. Everyone was given one sub-task and i completed mine, while also detailing Jack on what the packaging should look like. Hence, everyone did an equal amount of work so that point i don't agree with.

Secondly, i do not see the problem with Greggs marketing their branded products. Greggs do not only sell their products e.g. Walkers, Coca Cola etc, so Magic Middles could as well be in the line up for a Greggs store. And i believe it was a better choice than Starbucks which specialises in coffee. And a biscuit marketed for children wouldn't fit in at a adult coffee shop.

Good luck David, George and Naruto!

I hope you don't see me bringing you back as anything personal. It was a thoroughly difficult selection. As you say, everybody was delegated something and you got that.

Greggs is something that has been criticised, so it was mainly that.

To an extent, yes. I think that they thought that I was taking things personally when I actually wasn't, and it got to a stage where I was raising points that were being ignored not because they were bad points, but because people saw me as the negative one. I wouldn't necessarily object to that in the task because I don't think it affected either my own or anyone else's work, but I'm pretty annoyed that it's been raised in the boardroom actually. It's quite clear that the group don't like me, and I'm hurt and upset by that; but at the end of the day, their opinion of me has nothing to do with why we lost this task.

And a question for all three of you

Why shouldn't I fire you?

My logic behind Greggs was that the primary focus of Greggs is cakes and biscuits which is where Magic Middles fit in. Starbucks or Costa, their primary focus is coffee and secondary focus would be biscuits and snacks hence it would be more difficult to sell Magic Middles in a shop where coffee is the main attraction and different from our target market.

I feel as if this is why I shouldn't be fired. Nobody really had a bad thing to say about me on this task. My work was the least edited, it was hardly criticised apart from some minor grammar issues and some 'awkward' sentences. I was a fair but firm leader. I made sure I didn't force anything on anybody, such as the product, and have chatlogs of what was said when I suggested the product if you want me to show you them.


Also - may I just issue a formal apology to my team. I didn't realise that McVities had 'quirks' on the market, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested we go with 'Magic Middles' - although obviously there are differences between the two!

You shouldn't fire me because I think I'm in the boardroom for the wrong reasons. I've been brought back essentially because I'm unpopular. I don't think that I'm a weak candidate, at any point. I wrote the 'Health' section; admittedly it had a mistake in it, but that was my only mistake. I contributed a huge amount to the conversations, I raised numerous valid points and even though I was the subject of quite a heated debate, it was mentioned earlier that Zak actually thought that I was right.

I think it would be extremely unfair for me to be fired for this task, because let's be honest, I'm here more because the others don't like me than because I didn't perform on the task. I did not lose this task for us.

I shouldn't be fired as i have more of myself to show. I worked hard this week and did everything that was asked of me and continually asked David if there was anything i could do, as i wanted to do as much as possible. I think i have a lot more potential and have shown i can work extremely hard in tasks and i don't shy away from voicing my opinion.

I brought you back because of the fact you managed to upset, and ruffle feathers, of every single person on the team that was around last night within 25 minutes that I was gone, and that is not one-sided.

I went above and beyond to ensure that you were included despite MSN problems, that you weren't 'ganged up on', so I do think it's wrong for you to play victim.