Originally Posted by J9666:
“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.”
“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.”
This has already happened. Beautiful Michelle swore she wanted the job more than life itself, then when given it, walked off 4 months later. Katie again nearly landed SAS in trouble. She was selected for the final, but observant SAS saw her body language, and gave her a respectable way to extricate herself at the last minute. All this is true to life and acceptable, and SAS has not been sunk by the revelation he is human and fallible.
It is precisely risk and punishment, for SAS as well as for the candidates, which makes The Apprentice exciting television. If there are all kinds of safety nets and let outs hidden from the viewers, if there is no risk and no punishment and no mirroring of real life, who can be bothered to watch a 13-week charade?
