I think there seems to be a perception here that someone is either entertainment value or a good business investment. Why can't they be both? Why can't someone who is interesting to watch actually be a very credible business proposition in their own right?

So it was. She was out of her depth in the process. but nothing in the process challenged the fact that she had already done hat she wanted to expand.There's no reason think shecouldn't do it again Its not interesting to him because she can't charge customers much , and she has to employ a lot of people to achieve even that.

I can't see him getting on a train to Sunderland to pop in and see his investment, let alone visiting Glasgow bridal shops, or Cheshire drinks companies. Those won't relocate just to please him, and I think he would be binned by the BBC the instant he insisted someone actually move to London - it would be politically horrendous.

Because even with the old prize, the biggest most memorable TV characters never won . The loud and obnoious don't often win, the comically inept win even less often., The wide boy sales men never - although the ruthless competent salesman now look in the running. . Nor did the highest flyer win in most series. Nor did the small entrepreneurs . Most winners have come from working for smeone else. Once you preselect more people who can win, lots of familiar character types tend to vanish. You are left with a few remaining big characters with real capability - they often reach the final - but they almost inevitably come second.

That gets worse with the new prize as the people with viable plans, with returns guaranteed to meet his needs, will look like the last 4 have. Inventors and employees, in particular sectors, with particular skills. None , with the possible exception of Mark , mostly for the wrong reasons, were the major characters of their series .There's no place there for the Jasons, or Felipes, no dance or swimming club owners, and no James or Daniels either. None of the winners had a seriously impressive performance on the show , but there's no place for the Katies, Helens or Roisins to provide some, either. There's no reason to think that they are going to find more people with winning proposals, in the narrow profitability range required, who won't make as little impact as characters or performers.

Isn't the most memorable person all relative though? It's all very well for the production team to have their roles for people as you have just described - and actually I think there is no doubt about the fact that they do exactly that - but the most memorable person will vary from viewer to viewer. I personally am invested enough in the show to remember every single candidate there has been throughout each series - I realise that I am in the minority there, and I am probably considerably more informed about the show than most regular viewers, but different candidates will stand out to different people for different reasons. I have a friend who really had a thing for Uzma last year, and she didn't leave much of a lasting impression on me, I have to say. The person who is memorable will stand out to an individual viewer not because of the box that the production team puts them in, but because there is something in their personality, probably something that the viewer can't even put their finger on, that really stands out and resonates with them. It's why I had a thing for Zara in YA2. I'd say in terms of editing she was one of the more memorable candidates, but not so much as James or the two Harrys. For me, however, there was something in her manner and the way she conducted herself that made me think, from very early on in the first episode, 'I'm going to like this girl.' She wasn't the biggest character that the production team had created, but she was the standout individual for me for a variety of personal reasons, and I think every viewer has had that at some point with particular candidates, not necessarily the ones who the production team are intending.

As for your points about how certain characters never win - you do have a point there admittedly, but I wouldn't say that it is impossible for those types to win. My understanding is that at the start everyone has at least a chance of winning, but some people have more chance than others. I know that there is an argument that people like Jordan were never going to win. That is true, but I mean from Lord Sugar's perspective. I think he was completely open to Jordan impressing him, just as he is for any of them - it just turned out the business plan was unviable, but if it had been I think Jordan would have had a good chance. There are certain types of individuals who automatically have a disadvantage because Lord Sugar doesn't usually go for their type - for instance, it has been a common theme that he doesn't really get on with lawyers - but in fairness you would have said the same about doctors before last year, but Leah was very professional and had a strong and viable business plan. My point is that at the start, he definitely has his eye on a few individuals, but each person will get the chance to impress him. Someone who just wants to set up a small business (like Lindsay), a non-profit business (like Jim) or a business that could work without them (like Katie) isn't going to get it just because that isn't the kind of thing that is likely to get a decent return for Lord Sugar, but these people should think through how to make this more appealing to Lord Sugar, because Lord Sugar is pretty frank about this fact. If Jason, Felipe, James or Daniel had firstly had a stronger performance on the show, and secondly had a really strong business plan, they would have had a chance - it turned out that there were issues with these people and/or there were other people who Lord Sugar was more interested in. And I actually disagree with you about seriously impressive performances on the show. I think there are arguments that Ricky, Leah and Mark have all been very strong performers - I know that you and I differ on Tom, I will concede the fact that he was the weakest task performer out of these four winners, but I stand firm by the fact that despite his poor record he was very rarely the reason why his team lost, and in fact was often the voice of reason in the team, was creative and a strong salesperson, and deserved a better record than he got, and I know that some of the equally invested viewers, such as Jack, agree with me on that.

And I would also say that obviously the editing doesn't happen until after it has all been filmed, so maybe the issue with the production team is that the boxes that they put people in at that stage are recognisable as being boxes that winners don't generally tend to fall into. Would you say that the winners are predictable? I don't think they are, but each to their own.

Except that one of the biggest reasons why Sugar invested in Mark over Bianca is that the former wouldn't require lots of hands-on supervision. That being the case, he could be located in Aberdeen and, presumably after the business's initial set-up, Sugar would only need to visit him once every few months, or might even be able to do all the necessary communication with him over the telephone or Skype. If he gets a legitimately good business plan (or, as with Tom, the best of a bad bunch), he's not going to squander it just because he's too lazy to sit on the morning East Coast train for a couple of hours.

As for the main subject of the thread, since Sugar's already set a precedent with Helen and Neil that a candidate can submit a second business plan, maybe that should be extended to all the candidates? Have them write up a detailed plan which they submit at the start of the series, but also create a shorter secondary plan that they keep to themselves. That way, if they get through to the interviews and their main plan turns out to be no good, they have something else to fall back on (unless they're stupid enough to say "I was so confident in my main plan that I didn't make a second one", in which case they deserve everything they get).

I'd say he set that precedent with Neil, but not with Helen. He made it clear to Neil that he could change his business plan, and Neil wasn't listening. Helen tried to do exactly that, and on that occasion it was Lord Sugar who rejected the suggestion.

That was what I originally thought too, but when I re-watched the episode a few months back, I noticed that not only did Lord Sugar not tell Helen that she wasn't allowed to change the idea, in his final "summing-up" before making the decision he actually seemed quite amenable to the idea of going with the bakery plan instead. It was just that even with her changed plan, he still seemed to think Tom would be the better investment.

Which actually goes some way to proving what you said earlier - it's not just a matter of having a good business plan, but being able to inspire Lord Sugar's confidence in you. And I think that, rightly or wrongly, the combination of Helen's performance in Week 10, her bad initial business idea and the fact that she didn't suggest the replacement idea until after Jim and Susan had already been fired was just enough to break Sugar's confidence in her.

Fair enough. I could do with a Series 7 re-watch actually, it has been a while.

they need to completely restructure the show.

start off with quick interviews appraising the business plans and leave 16 candidates with VIABLE business plans. Then do knockout weekly challenges and wittle down to final 4.

It's ridiculous that they go through 8 weeks away from work to get on a tv show and then find out the pln can't work because it requires £1M investment, and the 250k wont cut it.

I think that it probably takes a lot of time, effort and research to analyse the business plans in depth. If they had to do that not just with all 16, but with lots of other applicants as well, I think that this possibly would be more trouble than it was worth.

It would be a more interesting show than getting through umpteen tasks and boardrooms and then find out either the Candidate forgot to do a business plan or it had holes you could drive Lord Alan's Rolls through.

You could cut down the number of business plans by removing:

* anything humanitarian, ie teaching kids to swim.

* anything outside the M25.

* anything the Candidate has no experience in.

* anything that looks remotely hard, complicated or new.

That sums it all up !

On the first note he rejected both the old folks home and the proposal
or assistance for the dyslexic this series. .

There's indeed zero record of anyone working outside the M25, or proposing to work outside the M25, winning.

Experience matters - both in the sense that all the winners have all proposed to do their old jobs. and he's never accepted someone trading on a small scale who argued they can scale up. or change job. Sugars need not apply.

You could add a few other criteria.

The proposal should produce "mega bucks" It can't produce as little profit as most shops, restaurants, coaching clubs, or small traders will be able to .

It can't require significamtly less than 250k as it won't be worth the effort - unless its a service that pulls in money with no investment. . He's not looking for anything that might need more money either.

Something that requires mass production will have to be cheap, and he's not going to go for something that will take his money in R and D. or setting up production. . Offer him a nailfile , not a new food line, or anything more expensive to produce. Better still hand him a developed product with a patent and market interest.

Better still. offer him a high value added service that you can do yourself, or without employing much high cost labour to eat your profits. If you can do it with an office, computer and phone so much the better. £5 for a swimming lesson isn't the way to go - something that charges £200 an hour will look more like it.

Offer something that recreates its own market . Botox patients face a choice of paying you more every few months or sagging. Mark's customers either keep on paying, or you or your competitors will move other customers up the results over them.

It can't require much effort from him. Someone who can just get on with it tends to win. Another argument for people doing their old jobs.

Don't offer him politically toxic things like hedge funds, or call centres. Literally toxic, like botox, may do, if profitable enough.

Don't offer him a new internet app, dating service, estate agents, or recipe service - he won't understand most ideas, most will be rubbish, and even if they are not, he won't risk it. Offer him something with a proven record of producing large profits that you have shown you can do.

Don't bother turning up if you are lawyer, or anyone with a degree in business studies.

.

Yes, semi-retired Sugar is too predictable and limited. Needs to be replaced.

Just like to make a couple of points in response to some of these:


I feel like he rejected the old folks' home more on the basis of Steven's personality than because the business plan itself was poor. Who was it that was offering the dyslexia thing? I can't remember.


Ashleigh Porter-Exley was working way up in Yorkshire, and she won YA3. I know Young Apprentice is slightly different as he was only investing £25,000, but regardless that is still a lot of money so he'll have a vested interest in what the person is doing, so I would argue that it still counts.


Whilst I agree that he is sceptical of people with these backgrounds, and therefore they come in with a disadvantage, I wouldn't say it is impossible for these types to win. Prior to Series 9, we would also have said, 'Don't bother showing up if you're a doctor'. The previous doctors (Sophie and Shibby) really were not taken very seriously. Leah, on the other hand, was strong and competent enough to impress, and in the end her being a doctor was put to one side. Who's to say the same can't happen with a lawyer at some point?

As for the other points made in this post, I think they are all pretty reasonable.

Even if none of the winners so far have been based outside London (and I'm not even sure how true that is), that doesn't mean that Lord Sugar isn't willing to invest in anyone outside the capital. Correlation != Causation, folks!

As for the whole "Lord Sugar unfairly fires people whose business plans he doesn't like" thing, since Series 7 Lord Sugar has fired a whopping four people after a normal task for reasons directly related to their business plan, and I think most people would agree that three of those (Alex, Myles and Sanjay) were absolutely justified by their performances on the task, and the fourth (Katie) borderline at worst.

It may be BS that Sugar fires people for reasons not directly related to the task... but let's face it, he did more than his fair share of that in Series 1-6. Scrapping the business plans, or even the entire investment aspect of the show, isn't going to help in that department.

Personally, I'd prefer it if Sugar didn't see the business plans at all to begin with. Then at the interview stage, they reveal and present them to the interviewers who appraise and give Sugar their feedback. Then the final task is to 'launch' his two prefered businesses.

Perhaps Sugar can see a basic business outline at the start of the show, but not know who is suggesting them.

But then it could turn out that all of the business plans have major flaws. I feel like that happened in Series 7, and out of the final four, three out of four of the business plans had issues, and the one that didn't (Susan's) required a lot more experience on her part. In that series he had to choose the winner based entirely upon their personality, with the expectation that the business idea would be very thoroughly worked upon. And after the decision was made to go with Tom, they in fact completely got rid of the business plan and went back to the thing that he'd already had success with in the past.

Yeah, I see your point. Perhaps he can see the plan outlines before the show starts but not know who's it is. That way he has plans that interest him but we still keep the gameshow element.

Sounds good to me, and the viewers could try and guess whose business plan was whose too.

Wouldn't work because every winning plan so far would have been in a properly wrtten CV . Tom's nail file and how he had developed and patented it and took it towards sales would be there, as would Leah's specialist training,. and Ricky and Mark are doing their previous job - as is S usan on a bigger scale. He's rejected everyone who has come up with a proposal to do something new to them, and he could assume that fitness instructors, accountants, drinks manufacturers, and shop owners will either be offering what they do - or something unproven.

The stated problem with Susan was her figures - once better ones are available it ceaseD to be an issue. None of the business plans clearly worked in series 7, one was a silly idea, two were not really ideas at all, and one was in need of accountants and detailed examination. . I don't know when the candidates first applied, but the proposals looked hastily thrown together - which would be conssitent with them starting out expecting the old prize, or not wanting the new one. I don't think Tom won on personality - he won on having a profitable patented product, and the possibility that might eventually have another one. he didn't offer it as his plan - it was just the only thing available anywhere. For most business purposes, Helen would be the clear choice for winner.or If you wanted to sell some things, Jim might be.

Apart from in mathematics, all explanation is correlation. Theories that have a logic, and fit the facts, remain viable theories until some evidence contradicts them. The more evidence that fits the theory, the more interesting it looks. In this case, all the winners operate within the M25 -three, I think, from Sugar premises. Leah operates (literally) in central London. Pre winning, Leah was working in a London hospital, Susan was selling in London ,Tom reportedly worked in the City, and Ricky was outside London, but in the South East - reportedly in Hampshire it might not show any causation, but it statistically does stand out that of all the candidates, from all the regions, all the winners have ended up in London, and none i think were working north of Watford. .

Lack of evidence isn't always proof either. Possible arguments have to be explored - because many answers won't be revealed ,and may be hidden. His Lordship's only stated that he he didn't like a few people's business plan as a reason to fire them - and he's often done that when he had no real reason to fire them otherwise. But he has saved people who have won with their business plan, over others, and he has fired other people when the eventual winner had a good case to go on the task performance. There's a lot of fired people who may have gone because he had no interest in their proposal at all. He hasn't said as much often - but he wouldn't would he?

I agree about the old prize being problematic too. It was often who fitted the job - they had to be able to do what specifically was needed, and they couldn't be somone who was too inexperienced, or new to the field, or, in some years, a really high flyer who would be bored witless by it.

I used to be the first to champion "The Apprentice" but lately I have noticed to many apparently "entertainment friendly" scenes and firings. For instance how do the cameramen know which premises the team when out on street selling are going to enter, the camera seems always to be in position waiting and the proprietor or assistant appears to be expecting the contestants, this it is not spontaneous but prearranged.Regarding "You are fired" episode 3 series 10 is a classic example of production interference, the losing team lead by Roisin, yet it was her selling the items to a shop for £8.50 that caused the loss,for had she sold only 2 more to the hotel then her team would have won.And being team leader and making a mistake such as that would have been enough to have her fired in earlier shows.

Okay, I'm going to respond to both your points.

With regards to the production team knowing which buildings and things they're going to go into, you're right in that it is semi-orchestrated. The teams choose where to go to, but there is a lot more arrangement behind it than appears on the show. This is why the 10 items task is so difficult; you watch it and think, 'Come on, it can't be that hard to find a shop that sells such-and-such!' Well, it isn't, of course - there are lots of retailers they can get the items from, but once they've chosen them the production team has to call ahead, make sure that the owners are happy for them to film there (I'm sure many decline, as much as it publicises their business, they also have no control over how they will be portrayed to the public) and there are probably forms to fill in in advance saying that they agree to being portrayed and the editing etc. Then, as you point out, they film certain things from two angles - they film them entering both from the inside and the outside. I remember reading an interview with a past candidate (I forget who) explaining that all the hoop-jumping means that the negotiations take a lot longer than it looks onscreen. With so many things to do in so little time, it's no wonder the candidates get so stressed - which of course is often the cause of the mistakes that they make. They generally are very successful in their own fields outside of the process, but the nature of the tasks make them so stressed and tired that they forget things, or do things that they wouldn't if they were thinking straight. It's a test of stamina as much as business skills.

Your point about Roisin I don't think really stands up. Yes, there have been people who have been fired for similar things, but it's all judged on a case-by-case basis. Apart from a few mistakes, she was generally a pretty decent leader that task, and had seemed strong in previous tasks as well. Also, it depends on what the alternative is - Roisin would presumably have been fired if the other people in the boardroom had been even stronger, but as it was there had already been a double firing of two people who had shown considerably less skill than she had, and firing her on the back of Lindsay and Nurun when she actually wasn't too bad would just have been unfair, I think. And generally it just comes down to who Lord Sugar likes. It's a selection process at the end of the day, and sometimes he gives extra chances to people who have screwed up a lot based on gut feeling, when other people just don't do it for him. It's very subjective. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that though, because there is no dishonesty about it. Lord Sugar is generally quite open about the fact that that is how he works.