I think most of us did say that Helene didn't cope with the pressure of the program very well and perhaps this was the reason of her behaviour. I believe that all the candidates have strength of character and resilience.

However, the program is not only a test of business ability but it is also a test of character and the sheer pressure is part of the test. I definitely don't know how I will behave if put under the same circumstances (Perhaps I will be much worse than Helene). However, seeing candidates like Raef and Simon carrying himself the way they did throughout the series made the way other candidates behave look even worse.

To be fair to Helene, many candidates displayed far worse behaviour.

You are right!! The concept of the Dual ad was brilliant (I would like to give Raef credit for it!) and their campaign was really organised.The smell was different and I think they fulfilled the creative side of their brief. The bottle does cost a lot to make but I think when it comes to production they could have reduced the cost.

Claire and Lee failed in the creative side of brief but fulfilled the commercial side. I would like to know if they fulfilled the commercial side by accident (i.e. by simply being not creative with the bottle) or by research. We don't see them research the profit margins, the costing, etc.

Also from the last 3 series, SAS seems to be more concerned about creativity in the final task. For example, last year, Simon didn't research the commercial side of his design as well as Kristina but he won the task (SAS was very impressed by his presentation skills).

Yes, Raef was completely unfazed by the process (although how important the job was to him it's hard to say).

Simon I would have expected to have exceptional resiliance under pressure because of his background and he certainly didn't disappoint on that score.

I think most of the candidates this year wanted the job. Raef after being fired never said that he wasn't right for the SAS (unlike Lucinda for example). He always said that SAS saw him as an unsuitable candidate but he wanted the job. He looked genuinly disappointed in the taxi interview for not going till the finals. Even at that moment, he didn't have a go at Michael for lying in the boardroom.

Raef seems to enjoy the tasks perhaps "too much" but I think this is part of his character. He was also one of the few people who got on with everybody which made it perhaps less stressful for him in the house. Even Helene said that he worked hard in the final task and she was impressed by him. I guess we all know that it is very hard to please Helene.

He really could get on with 'prince or pauper' although that may not have been the wisest choice of words to use in front of AS!

There is certainly a great deal to be said for finding it easy to like people.

That's why I despair of people on forums who focus on the bad rather than on the good and are prepared to expend great energy digging up whatever they can to say something bad about someone. It must make their lives far less pleasant than the alternative which is to use the same energy to try and understand why someone may have behaved they way they did or even if the view we got may have been unnecessarily harsh.

Wholeheartedly agreed!!

^ I think most posters are aware that the candidates are different in real life but they still express their dislike of how some of them came across in the show - especially that the candidates are in competition with each other and people are trying to say why x should win and why y shouldn't.

I think it is OK to criticise the candidates in the context of their performance in the show and accept that they might behave totally differently in real life situations.

Many candidates said that the editing did reflect their behaviour and character during the show. They might be different in real life but still this was the way they did behave in the show. Most of the candidates must have expected that they would be exposed to the public.

Sometimes the editing might be misleading especially when you see some of the candidates do something overly stupid out of the blue. In these occasions, I tend to give the candidates the benefit of the doubt and I usually find an acceptable reason for their actions.

Talkback will ALWAYS edit to produce "good television" rather than with any consideration for the candidates. It is brilliant entertainment, and, I think, a useful selection tool, in that the best candidate will usually win (thats best for SAS, not necessarily us).

All of the shows though , are EDITED, rather than live. This gives them greater polish, but does mean that e only see that VERY small portion of the task that ends up on TV.

I would put it to everyone that the people with the best view of the entire process are Nick and Margaret, and they probably have a far greater input into the weekly results than we know.

Do we know if anyone in Helene's team actually had that role? Maybe it wasn't needed; if Helene's photo stand was closer to her production room it wouldn't have taken much time to ferry the memory cards.

Or did Helene do it herself? It's a logical role for the leader as it gives them opportunity to check on both halves of the task.

Well, nothing on the task did.


He did say he hoped they would come up with something distinctive. Claire and Lee got criticised for failing on that.

There was obviously a lot that happened on the task that we didn't see. Helene and Alex had some sort of introductory stage-show and I don't recall seeing any of it planned. It's possible Helene contributed most to the pitch because she worked on the pitches before, usually with Claire. There was mention of focus groups Helene was going to see. She wasn't idle doing nothing.

They are not allowed to split into more than two sub-teams because they only have two film crews each. Helene had to either help interview the fake celebs or go to the printer place. Going to the printer place makes sense as she can influence what equipment they get and what quantities of consumables they buy, which is crucial for controlling costs, which is crucial for winning.

Yes I know about this rule. However, what I was trying to say that she should have paid more attention to the training or sent one of the other team to utilise the opportunit especially that Lucinda had already raised doubts about her capability of doing the job. Simon sent 3 of his team members to do the training and Helene had one more member in her team. The job of controlling the costs and determining the product can always be done after the training is complete. I know there are time restrictions but as I said before attending the training helps to determine the price i.e. the time each product needs to be produced, the materials involved, the ability of the team to do the job etc.

i do tend to agree on this point, although to be honest, I think the real reason that SAS fired Alex and Helene was simply because he didn't want to hire either of them. He was the one with the final decision over who had won or lost, so effectively, he could pick who he wanted (unless either team had delivered outstandingly well, which neither team did - both teams did pretty well I thought).


Again, I would agree, and to be honest, it probably was better that they both had separate responsibilities - they did not have the time for both of them to see to everything. However, costing should have been considered by at least one of them. I would have thought Alex should be held more accountable for this.



Indeed. Although to be honest, I think the fragrance itself was more or less irrelevant to who won or lost the task. As SAS said (I'm paraphrasing, I don't have the exact transcript), he didn't care if it smelt like rotten cabbage if it was going to make money.



Again, agreed. However, one thing I did pick up on was that Helene rubbished ALL of Alex's suggestions for fragrance names, without suggesting any alternatives. This could be down to editing, but I'm not convinced as it was Alex (and possibly Kevin) who came up with the eventual name (although Helene put them right on the Dual/Duel issue).



here's where I have to differ. It was very very clear from the way Nick was saying it that he did not mean it as a compliment.





And Lucinda got to the final five out of the same number of candidates. Not too shabby at all. I'm being cynical here, and it's not an attack on Helene (in fact, nothing to do with Helene or any of them personally), but I strongly believe that this series in particular was more about doing stuff for the ratings more than anything else. How on earth did Michael survive for so long? How on earth was Raef fired over Michael, and why wasn't Michael fired after the Kosher chicken debacle? (Actually, it has turned into something personal about Michael)!




Well - none of us can second guess Sir Alan. However, as he himself says, he doesn't always get it right! It's just a little bit too convenient for you too take what he says and dismiss it because it doesn't support what you say.

Despite our differing views, I have enjoyed reading your posts on the subject; it's good to hear other people's points of view. regarding Helene - I should point out that while I did not warm to her, and did not like her, of course I don't know her, and everybody on that show can fall victim to editing (Jenny M was a good example of someone coming across totally differently in the edited version to how she came across after she left the house). I would still wish Helene well and hope that she has a successful future, and would wish that for all of the candidates. I'm alarmed by the amount of people who claim to hate a particular candidate - hate is a very strong word to use about someone you don't even know!

Agree, agree, agree. despite what I have said about Helene's attitude, the fact is that at the end of the day, neither she nor Lucinda displayed behaviour that is worthy of hate. And I really couldn't be bothered to go round digging up dirt on anybody in the show.

I think Helene would agree with you now.

However, at the time it probably seemed reasonable. The job should only have needed one person. Sending a second person as a sort-of back-up to Lucinda would have been wasteful; why bother sending Lucinda at all if you know she can't do it? It's mainly with hindsight that it becomes the obvious fatal flaw.


I think Helene could figure that out without needing to be trained herself. They could have told her directly. And as you say, there were time restrictions. They had to decide how many consumables to buy before they left.

But the main reason not to wait is that it didn't seem necessary. I don't have a copy of this episode, but from the transcripts above it sounded like everyone, including Lucinda, expected Lucinda to cope.

In any case, it sounds like you are arguing that Helene was not a perfect project leader. We agree on that; she made mistakes. This isn't addressing the question of whether Helene was a bully and a bitch, which is what the original poster started by asking.

I don't think that she is a bully but her behaviour towards some of her colleagues was not acceptable. I think she could have dealt with the Lucinda situation better and I believe her comments on Jenny M were harsh especially that Jenny M has always complemented Helene even after the show.

Except how does the trainer know what to train them on if the products have yet to be selected?

The process must have been: select the products (Helene)
Train on the equipment
Price the products.

From the clip, the last two were being done at the same time with Raef and Lucinda being trained and Helene working on the pricing.

If anyone wants to verify the transcript, I can pm you a link to a copy online.

Next installment:

[At the shopping centre]
Narrator: Teams can only accept payment for photos once they've been processed in the back rooms. In Helene's team, Raef is in charge of printing the mugs and mouse mats. Lucinda will format the images on the computer. Project manager Helene has given herself the job of overseeing the back room.
[Helene and Lucinda have a discussion too low to pick up. Helene picks up a sheaf of papers and looks at them.]
Helene: Shall we make a start?
Lucinda: Yes.
Helene to camera: I have 100% faith in the team winning today. We've got some good offerings in terms of different things for kids, different things for adults. We're going to attract young girls as well, so I absolutely think we've got all the bases covered.

Up to this point, without the benefit of hindsight, I can't fault Helene. What she had done is a reasonable way to have proceeded with the task. I genuinely don't see why she would think she needed to dilute the sales effort or have someone double checking on Lucinda. She was confident, everybody seemed happy, including Lucinda. Am I missing anything?

Yes - it didn't work - this should have been apparent to Helene - and she should have had the flexibility to juggle things.

I DO appreciate the radical difference between putting a team together in the real world, and on TA. In the real world, if Helene, or ANY candidate is putting a team together, you select and recruit according to the skill-set required. On TA you are given a team and told to make the best of it.

In Helene (and many others) corprut world you have an entire HR department with the function to do just that.

Helene wasn't alone in displaying this lack-of-flexibility. I was actually disappointed at the general level of team leadership shown by several of the team; however, this is the nature of the competition. All Chiefs and no Indians!!

I think the pricing could have been done after the training. You can't select the product if you don't know the length of time it takes to be produced and the ability of her team to produce the products!!!

Any project manager could have chosen to approach the task in any myriad of ways. The question here is whether what Helene did up to now (in the transcript so far), indicated that she was useless or a bully. I think not.

I have yet to see any persuasive argument that Helene should have anticipated that Lucinda would not be able to handle a simple computer function once she had been trained in it and planned accordingly. Lucinda presented herself as intelligent and a potential top manager. Helene had no reason to think she would be totally incompetent. Lucinda herself crowed about her ability to learn.

This is just a personal observation about Helene's perceived character - I posted it in another thread and thought it was rather relevant here.

Most people seem to think Helene was very ''up herself'', so to speak, but I got the distinct impression that some of her exaggerated aggression (in arguments etc) both disguised and reflected a poor self image. Her show of self-belief didn't seem very convincing to me.

I agree; she was more defensive than anything else.

Here is my argument: There are three possibilities:

1- The job was simple as you say, then nothing would have prepared Helene for the incompetence Lucinda displayed. However, during the morning, Lucinda was clearly unable to cope with her simple job, Helene should have put someone else on it or at least make someone from the sales team attend with Lucinda when the technician came the second time. Since we assume that the job is simple any one would have been able to replace Lucinda or at least understand the nature of the problem when the technician came for 1 hour.

2- The job was technically complicated: Helene should have definitely paid attention at the training. Lucinda had already raised her concerns and Helene should have not left it the job to Lucinda alone. She should have supported her because Lucinda's role was vital to the task.

3- The job was simple but the problem occured was highly technical (probably related to the hardware). Helene was right to put Lucinda at the job and was unlucky to be faced with this technical problem. Helene was probably at fault because she didn't ask someone from the sales team to attend when the technician came to understand the nature of the problem. She was definitely at fault in the boadroom because she suggested that they failed because of Lucinda's incompetence rather than their bad luck and the difficulty of the technical problem.

In all three cases, Helene could have managed the situation much better. Helene is neither a bully nor useless but she is impatient and not flexible (therfore not a good PM). We see her repeat the same mistakes in the wedding task. We see Lucinda cope much better with the lack of sales by shuffling her team throughout the day while Helene failed to do the same when faced with the inability of her team members to sell the cakes.

I think this is a very fair assesment but one that is a lot easier with hindsight.

You have to imagine what would have happened had they lost despite any changes in the project management.

1) AS ridicules PM for removing a sales person who hasn't had training.

2) AS ridicules PM for wasting time doubling up on what was supposed to be a simple task.

3) Again, AS ridicules PM for wasting the time of a sales person.

You can certainly make any number of arguments for behaving in any particular way but only with 20-20 hindsight can you see clearly which would have been better options.

I'd certainly agree that Helene did not make the most propicious decisions but it seems absurd that she should be under the spotlight again and again and again and again for a task she won whilst a lot of the others made far more egregious errors and these are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

For example, Raef cocked up really, seriously, badly on the advert task and lost it and there are hundreds of posts saying he shouldn't have been fired (implying that he was far from useless).

Helene makes an minor error only clearly visible with hindsight, wins the task and there are a similar number of posts saying that she is useless and should have gone.

You'll have to excuse me if I start to have doubts about the intelligence and grip on reality of a lot of the posters here given such a complete disparity in the way they treat candidates.