« Previous | Main | Next »

Cat out the Baggs. Stuart gives his verdict on Episode 5

Stuart Baggs | 22:41 UK time, Wednesday, 1 June 2011

As we edge ever closer to the half way point, it's time to sort through the leftovers of this weeks task and see just how many pet related puns I can slip in one blog post.

In the cold light of day and with the benefit of hindsight it's perhaps unfair to criticise the candidates for their failings on this task. Luckily for you, I was born without a conscience. So, we begin by questioning the relative merits of creating a diet cat food (presumably for the American market). Nothing says I love my cat quite like forcing it on a diet.

Whilst team Logic opted for the more sedate brand Everydog, subtly missing the point that dog owners like to think their generic 4 legged fleebags are actually special.

Leon's pitch for "Cat Size" was delivered with the grace and finesse of a tumble dryer, surely assuring a win for Everydog and team leader Vincent. Alas it was not to be, with Lord Sugar selecting his Pedigree chums to be Cat Size and dog-eared losers, Everydog. My early favourite Jim looked like a kicked puppy when he got a dressing down from Lord Sugar, whilst Natasha got send back to the dog house.

Vincent and Ellie were left in a bitter boardroom dog-fight and despite Vincent's attempt to muzzle her, they both got sent to "goldfish heaven" aka flushed down the toilet.

Thanks for all your comments, here's hoping the candidates keep the one-liners flowing and the public forget my performance from last year!

Well I'm off to open a post office for £1.50, so until next week..Much Love

The Brand

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    In terms of product (except the name, apparently), promotion (advertisement) and team work, I think the wrong team lost. But in terms of appearance and meaning, well, Lord Sugar was right to bring back Vincent's team. Rather unfortunate.

    Sadly for Vincent, he made a mistake every businessperson is very likely to make at some point in their ventures. He allowed his sentiments to get the best of him. But generally, I'm sure he'd succeed in some other thing. So Alan Sugar firing him is quite justifiable.
    Ellie, on the other hand, was quite a weak character. I mean, looking back at the tasks prior to the pet food one, she was quite reserved, and knowing what Lord Sugar seeks in his "Apprentice", that obviously didn't work in her favour. So he was right to fire Ellie. Once again, she'd probably succeed better in what she did before.

    Quite a tasteless task, this one, though. I wonder about Edna. Is it just me or does the woman with a fighting spirit get away every week? I think she calmed down a bit and hid in a shell. I would like to see more of Edna. She's one to watch out for.

  • Comment number 2.

    From a marketing point of view- the right team lost
    From a 'team' point of view- the wrong team won.

    I think Vincent was right not to bring Jim in. Jim is by far the best candidate so far- team player, creative, good salesman, and he contributed to the task. I dont agree with Lord Sugar that Jim was 'responsible' for the failure ie for the name 'EveryDog'. It was clear to us viewers that the intention was totally contrary to what was perceived. It would be sad if Sugar fires Jim with a vengeance!
    Natasha is the silent person who should've been fired- maybe good at this task, but she was horrible in the others, not a team player, no ideas!

    Vincent- well, just unlucky - lost 5 times!

    I want entertainment, and BBC should ensure that we get it!!
    Britain's Got Talent has let us down this season- I dont want to go to bed at 7 pm!

  • Comment number 3.

    Double sackings are a business reality and Lord Sugar has shown the qualities of a superb leader by showing authority in a precise, logical and with a view to securing his overall objective of the best "Star" candidate. He has also ensured the other candidates are aware of what is expected of them and of what could happen. His decisions were very good too.

    The task was a good one but the avoidance of the "Price" and "Margin" on the show was rather disappointing. If the selling price was also a target and a measurable entity, there would have been another dimension to the sacking process.

    In any case, the brilliant Lord Sugar has shown why Amstrad competed against the likes of Hitachi and Panasonic and essentially he won!

    Best Regards,

    Dinesh R Makwana

  • Comment number 4.

    I think Ellie was the last sane contestant. Now only the egomaniac nutters are left! Yay!
    Obviously it wasn't Jim's fault, but Lord Sugar probably would have fired him, because he doesn't like him.
    I have no idea what the guy above me is on about, because none of those people are team players. They all think they're project manager whether they are or not.

  • Comment number 5.

    ....Vincent was way out of his depth and even made up the name "PALS" to show false intelligence....that should have given some clue on his short lease of term!..he was also rude and aggro type to Ellie and her mobile as one example.

    Ellie was a nice type of MD but standing for three hours for massage customers, standing around even though she was trying hard was still pushing her out. I think she is a supportive type but not in the top league.

    ...agree with "Dinesh R Makwana", the candidates could have been challenged on price of product and this applies to anything.

  • Comment number 6.

    Hello! Here in Smolensk butcher shop we plenty enjoyment of last night show. However, it lack drama and risk to life of The Apprentice Russia, described here > http://bit.ly/k7zA2w I think Jim would do well in Russian show...

  • Comment number 7.

    I agree Glenn's team didn't deserve to win this task. The solidarity that radiated from Vincent's team--and he, by the way, managed better than was acknowledged amid the inevitable recriminations--was completely absent from liaisons between Zoe and Glenn in particular. I preferred Team Logic in terms of the people therein and, although neither product was flawless, the EveryDog brand looked to me like an acceptable idea, a viable marketing strategy and certainly more plausible as an item than Glenn's creation- Catsize.
    Jim's contribution was considerable and he argued his case well in the boardroom. He was, I believe, despite the vulnerable PM's subsequent ejection by Lord Sugar, judiciously passed over by Vincent in his selection of the candidates who would accompany him into the boardroom for the final judgement.
    Lord Sugar was right to let Ellie go, but to also punish Vincent for what initially appeared to be a masterstroke of a tactical manoeuvre--and in normal circumstances it would have been--struck me as strange. Surely the 'strategising' Lord Sugar condemned is a part of every successful business? Indeed, in my mind Vincent's decision was vindicated because Lord Sugar used the opportunity to resume his criticism of Ellie's reticence. Admittedly, there was a risk because Lord Sugar was all too aware of Vincent's abysmal record hitherto in the process, while Natasha's involvement in producing the advert was sufficient to appease the man with the power. She was never in consideration for dismissal.
    It would have been interesting if Vincent had chosen Jim instead of Natasha. In that case, Lord Sugar might have concentrated on Jim's accountability rather than Ellie's anonymity or even Vincent's fatal seduction by the EveryDog brand. Moreover, Jim and Vincent might have colluded to force Ellie out. One thing's for sure: I doubt whether Vincent could have cited with any conviction that the result was the culmination of Jim's mistakes or denied that the blame lay elsewhere, especially if Jim had been pressed into a vehement self-defence. Let's not forget also that Lord Sugar might have been reluctant to fire a serious contender, notwithstanding his occasional errors. I don't think anyone, least of all Lord Sugar, would dispute that Jim is certainly that. He's my favourite and despite losing a friend in Vincent, whom he should thank if he does go all the way for what was tantamount to self-sacrifice in the boardroom, will, I imagine, continue to make a cogent case to Lord Sugar for his hiring in the weeks ahead.

  • Comment number 8.

    it seems like SAS has something against Jim. i dont get it, the programme on Tuesday purely focused on attacking Jim. He is my favourite candidate, he has shown that he pulls his weight when it mattered...for eg, to be able to buy all the vegetables for £40, he did well on Leon's task and so forth. All he did was to suggest EveryDog. he didn't push to take that brand. The subteam was against it and Tom was abs. right about using Every wont be a wise move, but the one who made the judgement was Vincent, not Jim. It is not Jim's fault if Vincent worships him.
    I am sure many of you who read this comment would agree that Jim has been the most consistent performer in this series (and to some extend Melody), so why SAS, Brady and Nick are so against him, is beyond my understanding.
    maybe SAS thinks he monopolies the crowd at home, so no one makes judgement against him, and when Leon wanted to bring Jim back to the boardroom (this is 2nd week and I havent had my choice of fav. candidate as yet), i thought he made a wrong decision as Jim performed, unlike the likes of Eilee or Natasha.
    it wasnt fair as well for natasha to tell to jim, what he said or how he managed to convince Vincent not to bring him in and jim's retaliation was good.
    somehow this series now isnt about getting a job /partnership with SAS - its more about b1tching and ganging against someone who has been performing.

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.