I am a deeply sad person and every time I see one of those sort of ads I point at the television and shout "it's a CAR!"

The car industry makes the most calculated manipulative and patronising ads- just the kind the OP was complaining about.

Oh, and I never ever remember what sort of car it is supposed to be advertising either.

Sir Alan put arty ads into Room 101 when he was on that show. He must be ticked off to see them reappearing on his own

I think Raef made a huge mistake by listening to Michael and not featuring the product more. He also made a mistake by listening to Claire and adopting her name suggestion.

But this is task 9 of the competition, and I think he should have been allowed one mistake as SAS did with Claire and Michael before. He delegated well in the task. Helene and Claire do branding for a living. Michael said he has a production company.

Did Raef lose the task? yes and not to someone who did a much better job.

Was he completely responsible for losing the task? No. Michael and Claire were responsible as well.

Should he have been given another chance? Yes. Almost every other candidate (except Lee) was given two chances at least.

On top of that, SAS was very harsh on Raef in the boardroom. SAS should have only made references to the task itself. He should not have said that Raef was lucky that he wasn't in the boardroom before and he should have said that Raef "is full of hot air." Raef may not be an apprentice material but he has demonstrated many times that he has substance.

Was there not a task like this in a previous series where they had to advertise trainers and the team that lost made exactly the same mistake? Claire even mentioned it during the show.

I agree - he doesn't trust upper class people. He fired James Max in series one because he didn''t trust his motives for wanting the job. He kept Saira over Miriam too, despite the fact that she did a brilliant job on the shopping channel. It's always disappointing watching this show because he always picks the wrong people.

It was obvious Raef wouldn't get to the end. Alan Suger has ALWAYS been the worst kind of socialist, I.E. A narrow minded bigot, that because he comes from a working class background, thinks that makes him somehow superior, because in the world of Sugar, if you make it on your own, that means your better than those that make it because of the circumstances into which you are born. He would never in a million years have some posh like Raef working for him.

Final three prediction; Alex, Claire and Lee. Working class boys (and girl)

Yes, they always make the same mistake. There was a graffitti task too one year (maybe it was the Amerivcan apprentice?) where the tackiest painting won for much the same reason.

What about his choice last year, Simon? He was public-school educated, attended Cambridge and his father is a multi-millionaire businessman.

SAS always wants it with both barrels - subtlety just isn't in his vocabulary.

Raef didn't plead - before the boardroom, SAS said "Let's see who wants it most"


Michael would be a poor winner and SAS understands Miss "I didn't agree"'s gameplan.

he didn't think Raef stuck up for himself enough.

perhaps SAS should realise that in fact many people have more dignity that to grovel to appeal to his narrow views. however, in the Apprentice, the people who would not kiss ass to get the job, just don't apply.

his disdain for intellect puts off many possible contenders - who would want to spend a year being insulted by SAS, when they can do OK elsewhere. he may have influence, but you somehow doubt that any TA contestant will be CEO material.

[quote=David Wright;23883864]It was obvious Raef wouldn't get to the end. Alan Suger has ALWAYS been the worst kind of socialist, I.E. A narrow minded bigot, that because he comes from a working class background, thinks that makes him somehow superior, because in the world of Sugar, if you make it on your own, that means your better than those that make it because of the circumstances into which you are born. He would never in a million years have some posh like Raef working for him.


Margaret seems quite posh to me

Exactly, the ads were always going to look rubbish. The task isn't about making a quality advert it's about branding and how to portray that brand to the public.

Alex's team won because they came up with a good name, remembered the product's USP, and remembered to mention both in the advert.

There were ways to mention/show the product whilst being suptle.

The whole thing was a mockery as SA would not be the chief-tissue buyer in his house I am sure.
On the one hand the teams were tasked with creating an ad for all the usual reasons - and tacky and in-your-face one that ticked the boxes for SA won - and yet, the target audience/main purchaser of tissues would find more appeal in R/M/C and H's ad.
I agree that it needed a product close up but once the box had been opened, the name was virtually invisible anywhere else anyway.

hmmm, but those adverts grab your attention from the off, and even though they have nothing to do with chocolate there is no mistaking that they are for cadburys - they have a glasses of milk logo, the unmistakable colour purple and the words dairy milk right at the end...

Nearly every post in this thread has missed the point of this whole task. The task was to create an advert and sell it to the advertising agency. It was they who stated Alex's teams advert was the best one, despite a crappy presentation and advert.

Raef lost this task even before he got to the presentation, as his advert failed to sell the product; whatever that product was supposed to be. It was pointed out, that it was unclear what they were trying to sell. It could very well have been about toothpaste with the Wet Wet Wet lyrics (...a smile of your face), but Raef was star struck at the thought of the 'homely' weather girl working for him; Michael on the other hand was just an idiot as usual.

So task failed because -

They failed to clearly define the product, which despite Claire's great presentation; the advert negated all that by failing to sell said product. The execs might have bought the presentation, but the consumer wouldn't have bought the product; because they didn't know what it was

As this was left to Michael and Raef, it is understandable that one of them should have been fired. I am disappointed that Raef went, but he failed to sell the product in question.

I would have had my son running away from me when I approached him with a spit on tissue (as he does now ) in different scenario's but when I pull out 'atishu' he comes running to me as they are soft and gentle as well as being anti-bacterial - therefore removing the need to spit on it!

Those are very very already well known established brands. The same with the Kleenex ad with the bloke from the the bill on the sofa. You don't need to show the products there, becuase the brand itself is already stronger than the product.

However, if you want a new brand, you need to effectly hit people over the hit with it so they know you exist, and that is the point which Raef's team failed on.

As someone else said, it's the same with 118-118...

One of the best ones is CILLIT BANG......BANG AND THE DIRT IS GONE....

Awful tacky advert, but everyone one knows what cillit bang now is and as some thing to sell an item, its a great advert.

Exactly. SAS stated in the boardroom that his opinion was also the opinion of the three advertising executives.

Thats the whole point - trucks and airplanes have nothing to dow ith cadburys yet here you are writing about it so somehow its worked - the whole point of advertsing is to be notcied and to sell

caburys - old firm same product needed a diff gimmick to sell more of their nasty cheap vile tasting choco - and it worked.

michael may be a slimeball but he looks rather cute in bed

Even better; try Noam Chomsky.

Absolutely.

Mind you, I did this that Atichu design looked like a box of Weetabix.

I was thinking more of Porridge (Ready Brek) with all the comforting blankets

I think you have a limited understanding of advertising. The new cadbury ads have a distinct message about the product and build on a previously well established brand identity - The Glass and a Half of milk in every bar has been running for ever since I can remember. In The Air Tonight and Don't Stop Me Now build on this with the concepts and cap it with the 'glass and a half full of joy' strapline so viewer associates the chocolate with joy. They would have been rubbish ads if Cadbury had been a new brand.

Lets take a real life example of the tacky style of ad... Cillit Bang. They put your teeth on edge, but almost everyone knows about the penny test and knows the brand name despite it being relatively new to our shelves. If you remember the ad - AND most importantly remember the product - then its worked. I've seen some artistically appealing ads in my time, but I've not remembered the product 10 minutes later.

Cillit Bang sounds like a sex toy.

I remember when the Sega Dreamcast launched, with adverts which had little relation to the product and did not show any game footage. Even worse, Sega Europe CEO J.F. Cecillon wasted a fortune on sticking the word Dreamcast on Arsenal t-shirts. If you are advertising a new brand, you have to tell people what it is first, otherwise all the fancy advertising and t-shirts in the world won't help you sell it.

Two points.
1.It takes a pro advertising agency a long time and a lot of money using a team of highly paid advertising execs/staff to produce a reasonable TV ad.

How can you expect a group of amateurs to do it on a shoestring in a cuple of days?????

2. If Big Al took the time to watch TV he would see many products that don't force the name down your throat and only mention it briefly. He obviously remembers his barrow boy days, shouting and bawling in the market.

Sorry for Raef