Raj Dhonota

Episode 8.  Selling unique business products to French retailers.  Each candidate is given a sales book in which they must record their sales.  Tom Pellereau was team leader for Logic.  Susan Ma was team leader for Venture.  Venture win.  Leon Doyle, Tom Pellereau and Melody Hossaini end up in the boardroom.  Leon Doyle is fired.

Eight weeks in and I have become both bored and frustrated with the consistent inconsistency in the boardroom.  The candidates may be better off playing the lottery than trying to determine what the rules of the game are.  On the one had Lord Sugar states at the beginning of each episode that he is “not looking for a bloody sales person.  [He wants] someone with a brain.”  Yet here he is again analysing the level of people’s sales as an indication of their performance.  Holding Tom’s sale book up in the air he criticises Tom saying “No sales Tom….No sales Tom.”

Then we have Karen Brady criticising Melody Hossaini for individualism, asking Melody “did you not understand this was a team effort.”  Has Karen not been listening to Lord Sugar or is she confused with the whole process too?  You can’t blame her really, she can only go by what Lord Sugar says, and that seems to change by the week.  One week they are criticising the “we we we” i.e. team approach, and next they are criticising someone for not taking the “we we we” approach.  Board stop yo-yoing around and make up your minds about what it is that you are looking for.  This level of inconsistency would never stand up in the real world.

Finally, having made selling a mandatory requirement in this task from the outset with the sales book, Lord Sugar decides not to fire the only person in the final with zero sales! Instead he chose to fire Leon on gut instinct.  It’s comical!

At the beginning of the episode Lord Sugar stated the reason for sending the candidates to Paris was that he did not want “any new business of [his] restricted to the UK market alone”.  That’s ambitious given the prize on offer may be nowhere near a £250,000 cash injection.  But more importantly, he seemed to be unaware of what it takes to sell internationally in today’s global marketplace.  I say this because selling internationally is what my businesses do day in day out, and I therefore have real experience in knowing exactly what is required to be successful in the global marketplace.  It is fact that when selling internationally buyers are three times more likely to buy from businesses that sell to them in their native language, as opposed to selling to them in a language that is foreign to them.  This is not only validated by my own experience, but has also been shown to be fact by respected market research companies such as Plunkett Research and Forrester Research.  Clearly, Lord Sugar was unaware of this; had he been aware, he would not have criticised Leon for letting Melody use her French language skills to sell to the French and therefore would probably not have fired him either.

Further when criticising Leon, Lord Sugar gave the example of when he first started out in business and had to communicate with suppliers from China, Korea and Japan without knowing their language.  I feel it’s a bit of a misleading example because buying from a seller (which Lord Sugar was doing) and selling to a customer (which the candidates were doing) are two different worlds.  In Lord Sugar’s case, when he started out, the reliance would have been on the supplier’s from China, Japan and Korea being able to converse with Lord Sugar in English.  And you can bet they did a good job of communicating with him in his native language because he ended up buying from them! In short, it’s the ability of the seller to be able to communicate effectively with the buyer that increases sales.

So all in all, did we learn much from Lord Sugar today?  In my opinion it is impossible to decipher any lesson with such inconsistency being displayed in the boardroom.  What we can conclude fairly however, is that if candidates are being judged on a task,  the very least you would expect is for Lord Sugar to understand the principles of selling internationally in today’s market and therefore not criticise candidates without merit.

Episode 7.  Coming up with a new free premium magazine and pre-sell the advertising to some of the biggest media buyers in the country.  The team with the highest amount of advertising revenue will win.  Jim Eastwood was team leader for Venture.  Natasha Scribbins was team leader for Logic.  Logic Win.  Jim Eastwood, Susan Ma and Glen Ward end up in the boardroom.  Glen is fired.

Given Lord Sugar’s previous misconceived stereotype of technically able people, it came as little surprise that Glen was fired.  In fact it was plainly inevitable.  In a previous episode Lord Sugar had wrongly stated that it was a very rare animal for a technical person to become a business person.  Today Lord Sugar went one step further by stating that he had “never yet come across an engineer that can turn his hands to business. “  Really?!  What about Bill Gates (Founder of Microsoft), Paul Allen (Founder of Microsoft) Larry Ellison (founder of Oracle), James Dyson (Dyson) to name just a few –  all previously engineers who are now multibillionaires!  Is Lord Sugar really trying to tell the millions of The Apprentice viewers that he has never heard of these people?!  And what about the thousands of other engineers or technicians who have their own small to medium sized businesses?  Again, surely someone who was previously an Enterprise Tsar would know this?  What kind of a statement does this make to those people who are technically able, who watch the show, and are thinking about starting their own business?

Lord Sugar made a reference to my favourite British sitcom, Only Fools and Horses.  He wondered whether Glen “was… one of those people who thought Only Fools and Horses was a business documentary.”  Well in my opinion you can learn just as much from Only Fools and Horses as you can from The Apprentice.  They both show you what not to do in business.  You would probably follow Lord Sugar’s logic in the boardroom as you would follow Del Boys’.  The only difference being it is explicitly clear in Only Fools and Horses, and requires just that little tad of thought on The Apprentice.  What’s more the rest of the similarities are clear; they are both meant for entertainment, ridicule business logic and have a heavy reliance on Sell, Sell, Sell.

In all this analysis of what Lord Sugar says one of two things is clear.  Either we do not see the real Lord Sugar, or his reasoning and judgement is flawed.  I say this because we do not see the kind of logical decisions or opinions you would expect of someone who has been as successful as he has.  For me it has to be the former because his decision making is blatantly inconsistent and has clearly had to be warped to make the right decisions for the benefit of The Apprentice as a show, which is totally different to making real business logical decisions or statements.

On a final note, given the way Lord Sugar handed the responsibility of team Leader to Natasha at the beginning of the show, I think we can safely predict that Natasha will be fired when Lord Sugar next has her in the final three of the boardroom.  Watch that space and let’s watch the justification for the firing especially if her performance on the task does not merit her being fired.

Episode 6 and another reference to “waffles” in the boardroom.  Thankfully on this occasion, unlike Lord Sugar on the last, Nick was not making a joke at the expense of someone’s origin.

This week’s task.  Setting up a junk removal business. Collecting rubbish. Disposing of it and making as much money as possible.  Helen Louise Milligan was team leader for Logic.  Zoe Beresford was team leader for Venture.  Logic win by £6.  Zoe Beresford, Edna Agbarha and Susan Ma end up as the final three in the boardroom.  Edna Agbarha is fired.

This is my sixth week of watching The Apprentice and I’m struggling to keep the interest going.  However, I’ll try to persevere with my battle to see whether Lord Sugar can teach us any valuable business lessons whilst on the show for as long as I can.

For me, it was fairly obvious that once Edna Agbarha was in the final three, she would be fired.  I come to that conclusion simply based on the opinion that Lord Sugar does not respect education as a whole, and it seems he always has a point to prove whenever he comes across someone with a good education.  In this case his justification was that he did not think he and Edna would gel in business. Not sure where the criterion of one’s performance on a task went in that decision? I do wonder how many missed opportunities his attitude towards education has cost him.  I agree education is not the be all and end all, but it certainly deserves more respect that Lord Sugar gives it.

Furthermore, Lord Sugar was wrong to belittle Edna’s efforts in arranging the appointments that had earned her team their revenue, claiming it was simple to make a few random phone calls and arrange a few appointments.  Ask any sales person and they will tell you that one of the hardest parts of selling is cold calling/getting appointments from scratch.  You can’t tell me Lord Sugar doesn’t know that.  I am sure he does which makes you think that he was just lining Edna up to be fired.  However, if it is a fact that has missed his radar, then perhaps he should have replied in the affirmative when Nick Hewer asked him if he needed training from Edna!

It was certainly right to commend Zoe Beresford for stepping forward as Team Leader and also for admitting her mistakes.  Time and time again I come across people from all walks of life, and at all levels of the corporate ladder, that will not admit to making mistakes or are too afraid to make the right decisions because of a fear of failure.  If these people were able to put aside their fears, or spent more time learning from their mistakes as opposed to covering up their backsides, their companies or businesses would be in a much more favourable position.  In this respect, behaviour or characteristics that show this positive attitude should always be highlighted to help inspire others to do the same.

On the flip side I do think Lord Sugar could help the candidates and viewers learn more by clarifying some of his more vague criticism of the candidates.  When he fails to I do get the impression it is a superficial criticism with no real substance.   Only by being told what one’s weaknesses are, can one understand and attempt to improve them.  In this example, Lord Sugar told Susan Ma “I’ve seen a few things that you are good at.  But there are a lot of things I am not happy at all with.”   Well, ok.  But, why not tell her what he was unhappy with so that she could attempt to improve on those weaknesses in the next task?  Good constructive feedback is essential to improving the performance of employees and it should be no different for candidates on The Apprentice.

In conclusion on today’s episode, I have come to the conclusion that rubbish was the perfect theme for The Apprentice!

Episode 5.  Making and branding pet food. Pitching to an expert panel.  The team with the best pitch and advert wins.  Glen Ward was the team leader for Venture.   Vincent Disneur was team leader for Logic.  Venture win.  Vincent Disneur, Natasha Scribbins and Ellie Reed end up as the final three in the boardroom.  Ellie Reed is Fired.  Then Vincent Disneur is fired.

It was only last week at the beginning of the Beauty Treatment task that Lord Sugar stated all firing decisions will be based solely on a candidate’s performance during a particular task.  Yet in this task he fired Ellie Reed because he had not heard enough from her over the five weeks and he needed to start thinking about who he was going to go into business with?  From my experience I can pretty much guarantee that this was a firing for the ‘benefit’ of the show.  It’s always the case that if you are not an ‘in the face’ candidate, and therefore are not likely to get much TV time, it does not matter how much ability you have, you simply will not progress.  And let’s not forget it’s the producers who provide the real feedback to Lord Sugar.

It also came it came as no surprise to me that Vincent Disneur was fired.  Sure it was well staged from an entertainment point of view, but I think it’s always been clear that Lord Sugar does not like people who to him appear, as Del Boy would say…debonair!  The justification for firing Vincent Disneur was that he seemed to be over reliant on Jim Eastwood, but surely if you know someone in your team has particular strengths you should rightly be able to rely on those without being penalised.  It doesn’t mean that you are in awe of that person.  It just means, that as a manager, you are able to identify and therefore utilise the different strengths of your team.  Anyone in a real business environment would say the same; clearly The Apprentice and Lord Sugar don’t see it that way.

In terms of which team should have won, I can understand why Lord Sugar chose Venture.  Although the weaker advert, according to the experts their product Catsize was consistent, well targeted and very well thought through from start to finish.  This compared to Logic, who the experts felt had the better advert but whose concept of “one food for every dog” was fundamentally flawed because individual owners might be insulted by the product.  You can’t doubt the logic (pun not intended).  There is not much that you can do to a product or service that does not meet the needs or wants of its intended target.  However if the product or service does meet the needs of its intended market, the marketing can be improved.  The fundamental is having a viable product.  From that perspective, the right team won.

This task was about the best pitch and advertisement – not necessarily about the product that can be most profitable, so it was fundamental that the marketing strategy be correct.  Perhaps if Logic had targeted their Every Dog product at places likes Vets, charitable animal hospitals, and other similar places where many dogs are cared for at the same time, and where it may not be viable or cost effective for these organisations to buy different foods for each dog, their pitch may have been more successful.  Perhaps, the market would have been much smaller, but the marketing strategy would have been viable and hence the pitch.

The other valuable lesson is the benefit of using focus groups.  Provided they are appropriately selected to represent an adequate cross section of your target market, they can provide valuable information about your target market.  They can help anyone thinking of either launching new products or services or looking to improve their existing offerings.  They are easy to put together and only in rare circumstances would a business would go against the advice of a focus group.  However, that said, I know of several entrepreneurs who have gone against the thoughts of their target market and done extremely well by building a demand for their product or service. James Caan is one that is famed for saying that he achieved his success through “observing the masses and doing the opposite”.  It’s not an easy choice because it takes time and effort to educate users to create demand – but nothing is impossible if you have the ability, desire and belief in what you are doing.