The Apprentice - Series 10

  • Thread starter Thread starter LiE
  • Start date Start date
In the bag, now out of the bag!

Edit: think James did not too bad this week to be honest.

Edit: get rid of Daniel, he's an obnoxious cretin.
 
Crap episode this week, starting to get frustrated with the entertainers that are hanging around, that said I would love to see Claude tear James a new one during the interviews.

For me the credible ones are Mark, Roisin, Katie and possibly Solomon (reading between the lines when he didn't get fired for the jumper fiasco). The other 5 are just filler for the boardroom.
 
I thought Sugar's attack on the Aussie was a bit out or order, he basically said that he hadn't put himself forward as captain which he did on the coach tour task and when the guy pointed out that he'd more or less been the unofficial captain of the last few tasks anyway he just attacked him again for the sake of it.

It seemed to me that the guy has been so good up until now that Sugar felt the need to attack him just to give the audience some doubts about him, he's stood out like a diamond in a lump of coal so far.
 
mmj_uk said:
I thought Sugar's attack on the Aussie was a bit out or order, he basically said that he hadn't put himself forward as captain which he did on the coach tour task and when the guy pointed out that he'd more or less been the unofficial captain of the last few tasks anyway he just attacked him again for the sake of it.

It seemed to me that the guy has been so good up until now that Sugar felt the need to attack him just to give the audience some doubts about him, he's stood out like a diamond in a lump of coal so far.
Click to expand...

I thought the exact same thing. The guy also lead the sales pitches and got lots of sales, but they didn't mention that in the boardroom, or it was edited out.
 
He also complains constantly and turns team members against each other, and doesn't seem to have any ideas of his own. He can sell and bond, but hasn't proven anything else at all.
 
Judgeneo said:
He also complains constantly and turns team members against each other, and doesn't seem to have any ideas of his own. He can sell and bond, but hasn't proven anything else at all.
Click to expand...

He came up with the dating game idea. His complaints are just him pointing out the stupidity of other contestants, and I don't see him playing games like the others do. He told Daniel to his face in front of everyone he needs to stop lying.
 
mmj_uk said:
I thought Sugar's attack on the Aussie was a bit out or order, he basically said that he hadn't put himself forward as captain which he did on the coach tour task and when the guy pointed out that he'd more or less been the unofficial captain of the last few tasks anyway he just attacked him again for the sake of it.

It seemed to me that the guy has been so good up until now that Sugar felt the need to attack him just to give the audience some doubts about him, he's stood out like a diamond in a lump of coal so far.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, definitely think he's a potential winner.

IMO that episode was a foregone conclusion as soon as Pamela made the "executive decision" to go against all the market research and what half her team was advising.
 
The thing is the market research seemed to be done with a bunch of board game fanatics who probably aren't representative of the general public (so yes they would be more likely to buy board games than an average MOP, but are also a very small subset of the total market for boardgames). I thought the relationship game concept was OK, but the execution was terrible (subjective questions that weren't done on the basis of empirical data like you might expect on say, Family Fortunes or Pointless). GeoKnow game seemed a lot better based on the edited clips shown.

Aussie seems fairly strong in a poor bunch this year but have the nagging feeling he'll have some skeletons to expose at interview stage.
 
HangTime said:
The thing is the market research seemed to be done with a bunch of board game fanatics who probably aren't representative of the general public (so yes they would be more likely to buy board games than an average MOP, but are also a very small subset of the total market for boardgames). I thought the relationship game concept was OK, but the execution was terrible (subjective questions that weren't done on the basis of empirical data like you might expect on say, Family Fortunes or Pointless). GeoKnow game seemed a lot better based on the edited clips shown.

Aussie seems fairly strong in a poor bunch this year but have the nagging feeling he'll have some skeletons to expose at interview stage.
Click to expand...

But then being realistic, who actually (seriously) buys and plays board games these days?

Slightly geeky types.
and
Parents to play with their kids.

The relationship game doesn't really fit into either of those categories, which leaves you with a minimal market of people who would be buying it as an impulse buy for a "girly night in" or similar - this doesn't really lend itself to the high price tag they were pitching.
 
Fair point as I'd agree the price seemed high - I was expecting less than a tenner wholesale price for the retailers to be interested. We occasionally play board games with friends at house parties but more of an impulse buy as you say.

I think the main reason I felt that was was because later in the programme they show a bunch of kids in a school(?) playing and giving feedback on the other game and it seemed like that sort of market was excluded from the market research.
 
HangTime said:
Fair point as I'd agree the price seemed high - I was expecting less than a tenner wholesale price for the retailers to be interested. We occasionally play board games with friends at house parties but more of an impulse buy as you say.

I think the main reason I felt that was was because later in the programme they show a bunch of kids in a school(?) playing and giving feedback on the other game and it seemed like that sort of market was excluded from the market research.
Click to expand...

It was excluded from their market research as they were aiming at the adult market, I think the other team went to a different group. IMO aiming at the geeky end of the market is the right thing to do, they buy board games regularly (look at our own thread on them here), and aren't afraid to go for new concepts. Compared to the kids market which is dominated by big brands that parents feel comfortable buying for their kids.


On a side note, I'm surprised at how un-technical all the candidates are this year. Normally there are a couple of people who look like they wouldn't need an instruction manual to plug in a DVD player, but this year the most technical person seems to be the "social media expert", who just sounds like he has spent a lot of time tweeting and watching videos on youtube.
 
I'm starting to wonder if The Apprentice is really some clever government conspiracy to encourage small businesses.

There must be some people watching it who think "well, if it's possible for an idiot like this to start their own business, then surely anyone can do it - maybe I'll give it a go"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom