Ballroom?

Though for me, I'd rather watch 1 no-mark get fired and spend 30 mins of You're Fired getting to know them better, than to see 2 or 3 no-marks get fired and not care or even remember their names.

Okay, it is in theory possible that everyone could have been PM, but only once each if everyone was (assuming that there are ten normal tasks this year, not eleven as there were in Series 7 and 8 - I presume it's the same as last year, but I don't know for sure). This happened in the first series of Junior Apprentice - everyone got to do it, but no one did it more than once, not including the final. However, look at the differences in numbers this year:

Series 1: Miranda and Adenike
Series 3: Sophie, Gerri and Ifti
Series 4: Lindi, Shazia and Nicholas
Series 5: Majid and Anita
Series 6: Joy and Raleigh
Series 7: Ellie and Alex
YA2: Ben and Mahamed
Series 8: Michael, Maria and Bilyana
YA3: Amy and Max
Series 9: Rebecca, Uzma and Sophie
Series 10: Lauren, Jemma, Steven, Lindsay, Robert and Chiles

We have so many more people this year who didn't get to do it. I would have liked to see how people like Steven and Jemma fared as Project Manager, and I think they'd have had a more decent shot without so many candidates to get through. And Lord Sugar's 'you've been PM-dodging, you need to step up' hasn't worked this series, because he has said it before everyone has had a chance to. He said that to both Lauren and Mark on the same task (and there was another person who hadn't done it at that point), and kept them on the same team the following week so they couldn't both do it. This seemed very odd. It seemed especially odd that they were being told off for not having managed a task yet when it was impossible for everyone to have at that point. That concern with Alex last year made sense. This year it didn't.

And it's not just about being Project Manager. It was really hard to see many of the candidates in the early weeks. Take Task 1, for example. Felipe, Sarah and Chiles were obviously going to get a lot of edit focus, as the PMs and the person who was fired respectively, so I'll eliminate them from my assessment. Besides them, we saw prominently Daniel, Robert, Steven and Roisin, and a smaller amount of Scott, Ella Jade and James. That's four people out of seventeen getting a significant edit, and means that ten people - Bianca, Pamela, Mark, Solomon, Nurun, Lauren, Katie, Jemma, Sanjay and Lindsay - got very little. Compare that with the first episode of Series 1, where there were a couple of people who were more quiet, but the majority got some screen time, and those who didn't show up in the edit more appeared in a few camera interviews.

Now that we're further through the series people's favourites have started to come out more, but as I said in a previous post, at Episode 4 a lot of my friends had no idea who they thought could win, and couldn't even remember many people's names. To me, that says it all. A third of the way through a show like this, you should know at least a few names of people you like, and the fact that people don't shows that there are so many people, the edit has to rush to show you why someone is fired, and there isn't time to show very much good work. And you need to show good work, because it is essentially a business talent show, and you need people that you're backing to do well.

Very good point actually - Lauren or Mark should have gone to the other team for Week 7 to give both of them the chance.

Episodes 1 and 2 were actual carnage you're right, just a blur of faces.

I think it has been good to see what it was like, but we really could have done without Lindsay, Scott, Chiles and Pamela tbh... I actually hope they go back to 16 next year, but I will miss the flexibility that Series 10 has had - I agree with a poster that said he should be able to have 4 in the interviews, so he has the flexibility to do two double firings or a triple firing.

Can we really see the producers reducing the size of the show when it's just about as successful as it has ever been? Probably not.

I don't know if Lord Sugar has the flexibility to do that. I don't see why he wouldn't, they had four at interviews in Series 1 and 2 and there was nothing wrong with that. For all we know he has that flexibility, and just has never had cause to use it.

I initially thought the 20 candidates was the producers' decision as well, but according to an interview I read with Nick, it was actually Lord Sugar who decided to do that (and he hoped that the number would reduce again the following year). I don't think that the ratings make that much difference. They may be better this year than they have been, but who is to say that is because of the number of candidates? I think that's just circumstantial. I think the increase in ratings is because the show has been off-air for a while and people are getting into it again. The break between Series 9 and 10 is the longest the show has had since it started (with the second longest being the break between Series 5 and 6). For a couple of years whilst Young Apprentice was on, there were two series per year and I think some people found that a little too much. I think it is very likely that that is why the ratings went down, and the fact that people have been given a break is why they are now high again. The number of candidates is just an additional factor.

Of course this is just my opinion, but I think it's reasonably likely.

But what I am saying is, I don't think they will decrease the numbers back again, when it's an pretty popular show, and the producers might be concerned that it would seen boring going back to the restriction of 1 double firing per series.

On another note, I am surprised to hear it was LS's idea.

So was I, he doesn't like to mess with the format that much. It was his idea to increase from 14 to 16 in Series 3, but that was so he could do double firings, which he demanded after the incident with Alexa and Syed in Series 2.

I think that generally the comments from people on this forum (and I know we don't represent the demographic, but this is somewhere where you can have a look for viewers' opinions) have been very negative, and it is probably the same on other forums. So if they're just looking at ratings, they may decide to keep it like that. If they look at what viewers are actually saying (which in my opinion, is what they should be doing) I think it will go back down. I don't think there was ever an intention of the 20 thing being a permanent fixture anyway, it was just as a marker of the tenth series.

But that wouldn't have solved the problem completely, though, as Bianca had also not been PM at that point.

I felt it was less urgent for Bianca, simply because he hadn't spoken to her about it in as harsh terms as he spoke to Mark and Lauren. I know that was probably just because she'd been on the winning team, but nevertheless it still makes a difference. Lord Sugar couldn't do the 'You were warned about this' with her that he could with the other two. But I agree with you. It made no sense to be that strict about it when there were still people left who hadn't done it.