So last week he mocks them for listening to the over 50's research group, and this week accuses them of being fools for ignoring it.

Can they ever win?

I think the point was that last week, the market research wasn't done effectively - they didn't ask the right questions, they didn't speak to enough people etc - so the results were so unrepresentative, they might as well have just gone with their hunches. This week, they spoke to a much, much larger group of people.

I thought this was... kind of squiffy. They did most of the market research - the focus group, certainly - after they'd signed off on the product and packaging. Both teams made handsome use of their findings, post-event market research is absolutely valuable, (I actually thought, what with the statistics, this was some of the most effective market research the show's produced, not that that's saying much,) but I thought it was a bit rich for Lord Sugar to say they should've listened to the parents they met after the product was finished.

I don't think it was so much about listening to the parents though. The point is that they were entirely focussing on the wrong market. They were focussing on what would appeal to children. Children don't usually buy their own food, so what would appeal to children is actually a secondary concern. The big one is what would parents choose to buy. I don't think you have to do a load of market research to be able to guess that not many people would buy a product with a skull on it for their children. Anyone remember Treasure Flakes? It had a cereal bowl and cross-spoons, to represent a skull and crossbones without appearing poisonous.

I don't know. You're right, of course - it's no coincidence that the one time they used the market research and compensated against it, they got orders - but I don't think children are entirely the wrong market to be aiming at. Pester power can be a huge driving force. The skull's a design boo-boo but as a product, it's hardly worse than Monster Munch.

Targetting children didn't pay dividends, but it's a huge market, and absolutely could have. Marketed right, that could have sold big - and did. One of the large retailers stated that they were very interested in what mum's buying, and I think her kids are one of the single most reliable ways to open her pockets. Parents buy their kids loads of shit they aren't personally fond of.

I agree that something more mum-friendly (like Popty Ping!) could've shifted more units by more neatly hitting both target audiences, but I think the market research proved that the idea they went with wasn't a total washout by any means whatsoever.

Nope, its a shambles for me.

I don't think pester power works so much with full meals. It would with Monster Munch, because that's a snack that you get while you're out with the kids. With something like this though, it's like an evening meal. Who's to say that the child will even be with the mum when she's doing the weekly shop?

The role of research was different this week. Here the products had already been made, and the point of the research was to get direct feedback to provide pointers for the retailer pitches. Both teams got valuable feedback - Evolve about the taste (which they knew already) and Endeavour about their packaging. Neil chose to tackle the problem head on, but Endeavour essentially ignored theirs except in the final pitch with Jordan.

Big mistake. It's entirely possible that if Alex had ensured that each of his team's pitches acknowledged the packaging issue and promised to do something about it, they might have won.

Frankly, though, Asda accepting Neil's promise of improving the recipe was totally fake. I know this isn't the real world, but what sort of buyer is pitched a crap product and then decided to buy it when the supplier says "it's okay, we'll make it better (and by the way don't worry about the fact we're suddenly adding lots of expensive ingredients we hadn't previously budgeted for)"?

I don't think they were adding that many new ingredients; just a few spices here and there.

Luisa threw in Scotch bonnet chilis and pineapple as extra ingredients during the final pitch - neither is a cheap ingredient. From experience, designing ready meals is all about the fine balance between quality and cost.

I thought Popty Ping and the geography theme were really good ideas. Where Alex fell down was when Myles sneered at Alex's drawing of Popty in a gondola and asked what it had to do with geography, Alex didn't have an answer and quickly dropped the plan.

What they should have done is have on the packaging one or two questions for the kids about the country associated with that food or: e.g. Name a country that shares a border with Italy/Thailand/China. Children would text/phone in (asking permission from the bill payer first) and give answer and the batch number and each month there would be Popty Ping merchandise to be won.

That's a good idea!

I thought exactly the same.

I think LS basically wants them to use their noddles, decide whether or not particular market research was useful or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

Sorry sounds awful...name is ridiculous outside of Wales and then the welsh speaking ones..kids wouldn't go for it either.

I'm afraid LS and the ghastly Kazza make it up as they go along, depending on whether the group does well or not.
They are always contradicting themselves from 1 week to the next