For a start there are confidentiality clauses, presumably signed by a number of people involved in the production, not just the candidates. There are 3 groups of people who would conceivably know, and could therefore sell their stories to the tabloids:
1. BBC staff.Presumably between confidentiality clauses and choosing trusted staff to work on the show, the BBC kep their folk in line. Given that there are a number of TV projects that require at least a modicum of secrecy (soap operas and their storylines, for example), it's probably also not a career-enhancing move to get caught blabbing; might make future employment tricky.
2. Sir Alan's staff. Sacked and no doubt sued for everything the tabloids paid you , plus more. Not exactly an appealing prospect.
3. Candidates. Neither of the final two are likely to blab, so it's likely to be somebody discarded at the interview stage (or in this case at the Alex and Helene stage). But whichever candidate did it, they're going to be very publicly sued as having broken a confidentiality clause, and no doubt painted as a bitter loser to boot. Not only will they come out with no money, their integrity will be so shot to pieces that convincing anybody to employ them in future will be tricky. Lying on your CV is one thing; deliberately breaching a contract term to undermine an entire project is a whole different ball of chalk.

Probably at least in part to do with Sir Alan's schedule, plus also maintaining a degree of integrity over the process. Yes the fact that the folks are accompanied by a film crew is a giveaway that something's up (even if they're not fed a cover story about filming a new business at work or something), but at that point, nobody has an opinion on the candidates. Imagine the wedding task was filmed after the first few episodes had been shown? Lee might have had to spend half his time not "selling fongs" but defending himself against people haranguing him for the Sara episode. Or pretty much all of the candidates at the car hire task could have had their work seriously impeded by people wanting to either slag them off or tell them how wonderful they were and wanting to have a picture with them to show their mates. It would just be too disruptive to the task.

The BBC have VERY little to do with the project, other than scheduling and paying for it. Talkback Thames make it in its entirity - allthough the strictures do of course apply to them. They are, in any event a much smaller organisation than the BBC.

We are also missing the work colleagues of the discarded candidates. Presumably Helene is back at GE, Daffyd with the bank, and we KNOW Simon is back with Sky and has been promoted.

You cant put an entire department of GE under a confidentiality clause, and in todays world it would be SO easy for a work colleague to let the cat out of the bag. After all, there must be SOME of her colleagues who view Helene with the same degree of love and caring, as, say, Lucinda does!!! (lol)

Very convincing explanations indeed from J9666. Sounds like someone who knows the media world.

The only thing I don't like is the alleged procedure where 2 endings are shot, and SAS makes up his mind after both candidates have worked 6 months for him under close observation. The Apprentice is not only a test of the candidates, it is a test of the quick and sure judgment of this 800 x millionaire.

By all means shoot 2 endings to preserve the uncertainty in case human nature allows the secret to leak out. But on the day of shooting SAS ought to put his written decision in a sealed and datestamped envelope and safely deposited with an impeccable authority, contents unknown to either candidate. 6 months later the envelope will be opened and SAS and BBC will be bound to go with the chosen decision, barring an unthinkable act of God in between. That would preserve the integrity of this double test.

I can just about see why some people want to know what's going to happen in a soap (although it was much better when you actually got a suprise when you watched the programme in my opinion) but why would anybody want to know who has won the programme 12 weeks before it goes out - what would be the point of watching? So papers would only lose readers rather than gain them - I think they are more interested in 'kiss and tell' stories about the participants rather than knowing who got fired.

The Apprentice candidates only become stars AFTER their highly dramatic shenanigans on TV. In their natural habitat before fame, each candidate probably looks quite colourless and insignificant. 6 months from now Apprentice fever will have died down even as Apprentice 2009 starts shooting with 16 unknown faces. Quite a neat arrangement.

Except that AS SOON as episode 1 is shown, all of their current colleagues will kno what they have been doing for the last 3 months - AND that they didnt win!!! In todays world of venality it would be just too easy to pick up the phone to the Sun and spill the beans.

Before last Wednesday this forum reported Helene making derogatory comments about The Apprentice, from which posters drew the correct inference she did not win. On Tuesday one person posted that Alex told his ex Bolton school best chum that he had lost and Lee had won, and the news spread out like ripples in a pond.

This forum is of course a hotbed of reliable leaks on Saturday nights for Strictly Come Dancing eviction result. But there are a sizeable number of forumites desperate not to know the result leaks concealed in spoilers. Pity the tabloids have no Spoiler mechanism.

They do. It's called not buying them.

Not learning the Apprentice result is important.

But not buying the paper and missing out on Page 3?

Which bank does he work for.

If the employ innumerate managers I think I'd prefer to give them a miss.

And is he still the only gay in the village?


I didn't know that. Good news that he's been promoted.

He has a Facebook page and its on there.

Obviously there would be no great story in publishing the winner early on; in the first few weeks viewers are still "getting to know" the candidates, and don't have any "emotional investment" in them; it would probably only be a story worth publishing in the second half of the series. And as you say, it's an act which might well backfire on the papers, both in terms of the viewers and the BBC.
I could well imagine the Beeb having a little chat with the papers and pointing out that they're giving a very full briefing beforehand, plus plenty of access to sacked candidates afterwards etc, but in return the result is sacrosanct. Any paper blowing the result early may well find themselves cut off; no interviews, no preview tapes, no invites to press conferences. And not necessarily just for The Apprentice. I imagine that the BBC could make life tricky for a newspaper's TV pages if they put their mind to it. (And I don't know how much any of Sir Alan's companies advertise in the newspapers, but I think we can bet that any paper that spoils the result wouldn't be getting any more of his bladdy money in the future either...)

How do the 'Apprentice: You're Fired' episodes work, then? I'm not sure how they all fit into this due to the large studio audience who appear to know the candidates.

Or do they film it after the episodes are broadcast?

The show is a fake really. Lee's reaction to 'winning' was not real.

Claire's performance was very convincing though .

He was inspired by 2 years and 4 months.

You're Fired is filmed a day or so before the episode to which it relates is broadcast.

Worse if he judges them on performance in the 6 months whats the point of the series, the final task or the interviews? Whats the point anyway in hiring two people who may both be duds for 6 months just to find out which to hire for a year? Might as well just decide on one and send them to make coffee for a year if they prove to be a dud. What do they get paid too - you wouldn't work for peanuts for 6 months in the 50% hope of getting a one year contract.

If you remember that was no winner declared (by profit or other's opinion) in the final task so it was Suralan's sole decision who was fired.

Working for Suralan for 6 months has always been a part of the series..perhaps to make sure he doesn't hire a complete dud.

I presume the 6 month salary is good enough to make sure the candidates wait for the result.

It was mentioned on a facebook group that someone at GE had seen Helene back at work, so I suppose the work colleagues and family/ friends is hard to keep secret.

Saying that it must be the same for shows like Gladiators. The final was filmed in front of a stuio audience (including fans of the contenders) over a month ago yet I havent seen any info on even who makes it to the quarter finals/ semi finals yet, let alone who wins the final

I'm surprsied so many people find this surprising.

True Apprentice fans would have found this out when they did a "behind the scenes" TV show last year. Next you'll be saying that you didn't know that the "walk to the taxi" shot at the end of the show was actually recorded on the first day of filming or that you actually think he has offices in Canary Wharf.

To hire two finalists for 6 months to keep the lid on the secret is ok. But

is not on.

This series is not really "The Apprentice",
it is "The Master and The Apprentice".

Persons already earning £90K would not want 3 months of rigours then working for a person who cannot decide on a winning horse until it has passed the post. For SAS to pick Michelle then for her to walk off after 4 months is ok.

But the final is the whole point of the 3 months. The decision made after the last task must be real and binding, right or wrong. Otherwise there is no point watching.

So we cannot look forward to your esteemed contributions to this forum (or its successor) next year?

The idea of the two of them working for him for six months is to protect the result. It at least means that the result of the final is unknown until virtually the last moment, even if somebody did blab about a failed candidate; you would still not know who had won.
The fewer people who know who has won, the fewer leaks are possible. If only Sir Alan knows, it' safe.
As for why it's not written down in secret and then produced months later? I suspect a shrewd piece of legal risk mitigation. If Sir Alan wrote down a name on a piece of paper, at the end of November and said "Here's the winner, we'll open this in a few months at the end of the episode broadcasts, and this person will be The Apprentice, with the £100k job etc", then that's pretty much a job offer. Let's say the winner's name is Bob. Suppose in the intervening six months, Bob the "winner" turns out to be rather duff, or possibly something worse. In a normal job, you could get rid of Bob for underperformance, or gross industrial misconduct, or whatever. But under the terms of the show as you would like it, SAS would still be obliged on 1st June or whatever to offer Bob the Apprentice job; the £100k, the Sugar mentoring, whatever. And you couldn't sack Bob for having been duff, because when Bob signed that Apprentice job contract for £100k on 1st June, you already knew that he was crap, (or a a drunk driver, or a nazi or a child molester). You couldn't sack him for his wrongdoings or shortcomings before 1st June because you already knew that before you gave him the contract to sign on 1st June. And arguably, you'd have a hard time firing him for being crap (or a PR liability) on any occasion after 1st June, because when you employed him, you already knew he was like that. Bob would have a great case for constructive dismissal, because you knew he was crap, but you offered him the contract, having already employed him for six months and knowing that he was crap. You knew what you were buying. I'm pretty sure if Sir Alan's side turned up to Bob's industrial tribunal and said "well yes, but it only happened that way because of the rules of a gameshow", they'd be laughed out of the hearing.
What you would actually be doing is tying Sir Alan to a candidate for the whole year, no matter how bad he turned out to be. Under "normal" circumstances, he could take somebody on as Apprentice, and if they turned out to be crap, probably ditch them inside several months. But if you make him give the job to somebody after six months that he already knows is crap, then he's pretty much stuck with him for the whole year (indeed, 18 months in all), rather than just six months. Can't see Sir Alan going for that.

He wouldn't be entitled to take a case for constructive dismissal, or unfair dismissal for that matter.

These rights would only apply after 12 months employment.