The Apprentice Week 10 – Girls on Top

July 4, 2013 6 Comments

The Apprentice Week 10 – Girls on Top

courtesy of BBC

courtesy of BBC

This week’s task in The Apprentice saw the 6 remaining candidates back in gender team. The task itself was one of Sugar’s favourites, as it replicates his own early success; both teams are given £150 to invest in stock and maximise the return by selling first on a market stall and then in a shop.

For the boys, Myles pips Jordan to be PM, with Luisa’s experience in retail winning out over Francesca. There was an immediate contrast in approach, with Luisa clear in her strategy (“stack ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap”) and her choice of items (fashion). This allowed the girls to start sourcing their items and checking out the market stall pitch immediately.

Myles proved to be indecisive, or maybe out of his depth, and the clear teamwork seen with the girls was missing. The lack of decisiveness led to a delay in getting out to source items. Perhaps not surprisingly, Myles decided to go for luxury items (which he has experience in marketing) for a market stall in Shoreditc! Even his team wasn’t convinced.

At the market place, Luisa blossomed, and the strategy and general choice of items resulted in a steady stream of sales. They reinvested the stock wisely and had enough of it to fill out the shop on day 2. The boys ended up with 16 ceramic novelties priced at £20 up. Their sales were slow, but it was Neil who again managed to pull in the most. An alternative line of greetings cards didn’t sell, so Jordan tried to offload them to local shops, with no success. Myles strategy and products were a mess. They sold so little on the market that they couldn’t fill a quarter of their shop, so they converted it to a makeshift market stall, using the doorway.

Neil suggested a high risk strategy to invest and sell a high ticket item. Unfortunately, the novelty vase that Jordan came back with impressed neither his teammates or the customers and it also didn’t sell.

In the boardroom, it was no surprise that the boys lost. Neil was in the best position to survive, due to his sales, but Sugar (ignoring his previous success as pm) labeled him a One Trick Pony. Jordan had been completely ineffective, but it was Myles who had to go, especially after last week’s lucky escape.

What was surprising, was that each of the boys outlined their business proposal to Sugar, and none of them was inspiring. Jordan, in particular, is unlikely to get past next week as his App idea requires an IT person as a 3rd partner. Sugar will not go for this.

So, its taken a long time, but the girls, and Luisa in particular, came good. If her business proposal is a Retail one, Sugar may be prepared to put aside her obnoxious behaviour in earlier tasks and take her on as a partner.

Filed under Influential Communication, The Apprentice Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The Apprentice Week 9 – Ready, Steady, Gone

June 27, 2013 1 Comment

The Apprentice Week 9, Ready, Steady, Gone

Alex, courtesy of BBC

Alex, courtesy of BBC

This week, our 7 remaining candidates had to design a ready meal and pitch it to 3 leading retailers. The results were interesting. One team got the packaging right, but the product was poor, and the other team got the opposite results.

It seemed like Karma that the big egos, and even bigger mouths, of Luisa, Neil and Francesca were working together in the Group of Death. Neil took on role of PM, and his first decision was to allow Luisa to convince him that Francesca should do the meal preparation (despite protesting that she never cooks). Luisa, who runs a cake business, claimed she doesn’t do savoury. This was later shown to be untrue. This left Lu and Neil (who don’t get on) to do the brand work.  The team decided on a fusion theme, blending Caribbean and Thai.

Alex finally got a chance to be PM, as he was appointed by Lord Sugar to lead Myles, Leah and Jordan. Myles and Alex worked on the theme and brand, with Jordan and Leah doing the preparation and testing.

Alex pushed hard for an educational geography theme, based on meals from around the world. Myles wanted a horror Theme that would appeal to children. Myles chipped away at Alex, who eventually caved in. Alex reasoned that as Myles has children, he couldn’t ignore his instinct. This proved to be a mistake, as it would cost the team the task.

Over in The Group of Death, Francesca proved she is no cook when she managed to produce the most bland meal, and got feedback in testing that it was neither Caribbean or Thai. Francesca had followed Lu’s recipe (yes, she can cook) but her lack of confidence / experience meant she was unable or unwilling to adjust the flavour. The impossible happened, and I found myself feeling sorry for Francesca! Surprisingly, peace was declared between Lu and Neil and their branding was half decent.

At least there was cohesion in their group. Marketing guru Myles, now leading the brand team, pushed for packaging that the kids loved. The kids also loved the product, so it must be a winner right? No. My sixteen year old son pointed out that it is parents, not children, who buy the food. Going for packaging that appealed to the children, including a skull more usually associated with poison, was a fatal error. So good product, but the wrong packaging.

In the pitches, Neil made the best of a bad job by telling retailers the product would be improved if they placed order! Eh? In the real world, the retailers would say come back when you have a finished product, but this is not the real world.

Jordan saved the pitching for the other team, where PM Alex took a back seat, and first Myles and then Leah were poor.

In the boardroom, Neil’s strategy won as they secured the most orders. Poor product, Good packaging, Clever Pitching. Not real world, but the Group of Death lives on. Luisa was even praised by Karen for her improved / toned down performance.

In the losing Team, Jordan comes out with most praise and is excused from the FInal Three. PM Alex sees Myles as to blame, and wants it to be a Final Two. If only he’d been that decisive in the task. Sugar’s having none of it, and Leah has to come back too.

Anyone watching the programme would agree that Myles was to blame. Alex went against his instinct based on sound logic (Myles experience in marketing and the fact he is a parent). Of course, Sugar has his own agenda and ignores the facts. Alex is fired, less for his performance this week and more because Sugar feels he is too young, and changes his mind / direction too easily. This may be a fair assessment of Alex, but based on the task, it is Myles who should have gone.

Jordan continues to shine, but Neil and Myles took backward steps this week; Neil for putting Francesca in the kitchen (surely Luisa working on her own in her area of expertise was a gift opportunity?). Luisa actually looks a better candidate, but her refusal to work in the kitchen shows that actually the leopard hasn’t changed it’s spots.

Filed under Influential Communication, The Apprentice, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

The Apprentice Week 8 – Functional or Dysfunctional?

June 20, 2013 1 Comment

The Apprentice Week 8 – Functional or Dysfunctional?

courtesy of BBC

courtesy of BBC

What next for The Apprentice? After last week’s double firing and the ongoing personality clashes, the candidates in this year’s programme are certainly standing out, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

This week, it was a case of functional versus dysfunctional.This was in relation not only to the contrasting team dynamics, but also to the website of winning PM Jordan. The opposite team, led by Jason was the epitome of dysfunctional, with 4 individuals all pulling in different directions. Not only did they lost the task, but along the way they lost a PM.

Jordan led a team with clear focus, direction and teamwork, giving a master class in project management and leading form the back through effective delegation. Or as Sugar seemed to categorise it, hiding at the back. The main criticism of their dating website was that it was too corporate and at odds with the rest of the campaign and the light hearted advertisement. This could have been an issue, but in the end Jordan came out as competent if not exciting.

Jason volunteered for the unenviable task of leading the strong personalities of Neil, Francesca and Luisa. He championed the idea of a dating site for over 50s, but wanted it to have the energy of a site for over 30s. The over 50s idea was received with lukewarm enthusiasm by the team, principally due to the fact that they had little knowledge of the market.

Mistake number one by Jason was to pair himself with Luisa. She has proved to be a real snake in the grass, with a massive ego and no scruples. While they worked on  argued over the logo, Neil and Francesca set off to do some market research.

Mistake number two was allowing the research to be done with a blank piece of paper and to a small number of people. Jason had a clear vision, and this should have been tested by offering choices, not asking for general opinions. This reflected the lack of comfort with the idea by the sub team. This led to a conflict between the vision that Jason had and what the poor research suggested the customer wanted. At this point, Jason, seemed to lose interest in the project and stopped fighting his corner.

Mistake number 3 was in Jason’s leadership at this point. He effectively wrote a suicide note when he stepped down as PM due to Luisa’s constant sniping. His time management didn’t help, and brought out the worst in Luisa’s Driving Social Style. I’m convinced this was because the project was going in a direction his heart told him was wrong. He needed to be stronger and stick to his idea. In the end he put the team first, which is praise worthy, but looks weak to Sugar who would never do this. Luisa gets her wish to lead the team, and Jason slips back into the role he is most comfortable with – team player.

The rest of the task proceeds without too much incident, though the pitch from Luisa was a mistake and Neil would have been better based on past experience.

In the boardroom, it is revealed that  the Jason / Luisa experiment  didn’t work and they lose the task.

Mistake number 4 was Jason bringing Francesca instead of Neil. Neil would probably have supported Jason to get rid of Luisa, who he may see as more of a rival in the long term. In the end, the girls gang up on Jason, and although neither comes out well, especially Luisa, who is now in the last chance saloon, it is Jason who is, with regret, fired.

The question is not so much was it right that Jason was fired, but rather whether he should ever have been in the programme. I think Jason allows corporate life to hold a mirror up to itself. The contrast between his thoroughly decent behaviour and that of the more obvious, selfish candidates allows us to decide whether we would want to work in corporate life.

For me, it reinforces my decision to go it alone and set up my own business.

Filed under Influential Communication, The Apprentice, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The Call Centre Week 2 – SWSWSWN

June 12, 2013 Leave a comment

MP910216392The Call Centre – SWSWSWN

This week at the “Save Britain Money” Call Centre in Swansea the focus is even more on personality.

Last week we got an insight into Nev Wishire’s style of leadership. Nev is an extrovert, and the programme suggests he likes to surround himself with similar outgoing personalities.  Of course, expressive personalities make for better television than the more reflective, introverted style, so it is hard to know how much of what we see is down to editing and how much is real? This week we see examples of how this preference can create issues and burn out. But do you agree with Nev’s approach? Well, as the man himself likes to say “Some Will, Some Won’t, So what? Next (SWSWSWN).

We see Nev’s Paternalistic Leadership Style  in action once again this week but with mixed results. First, he tries to rescue high maintenance, poor attendee, but occasional top sales performer Ania, who has anxiety issues. We saw a similar approach  last week with Hayley, who was promoted (?)  to tea lady after her sales started to slip. Hayley seems to thrive in this less demanding role, so Nev tries to repeat his success with Ania, by making her a tea lady, doing a 2 week holiday cover. This time it doesn’t work out and she ends up leaving.

Nev’s efforts to help Ania are contrasted with his attempts to get George a date. The programme makers would have us believe that George is atypical in Nev’s Call Centre. Nev himself describes George as a hard worker, a slogger and dependable. So, he’s a bit more steady in his sales, but with fewer peaks and troughs than the more excitable Ania. Unfortunately for George, who didn’t ask for Nev’s help, the scheme backfires, with even desperate-for-a-husband Alex turning him down. It is interesting to see how Nev equates George’s lack of success in getting a date (6 years and counting) to his lack of confidence. It is more likely that working in an environment with so many extroverts he is not going to find someone to like him for who he is.

Can we conclude anything from these vignettes? Nev is passionate about creating a “unique atmosphere” in his call centre. This is characterised by energy and enthusiasm, something that extroverts can deliver in abundance. The difficulty is maintaining that energy, and the programme concentrates on the lengths that the management team, led with gusto by Nev, go to keep the energy up; from speed dating, to a rock band, to a Voice of Wales Call Centres competition. It is probably necessary to have a mixture of extroverts (Anias) and introverts (Georges); the former give the centre energy and drive activity, the latter give a solid performance foundation that is more predictable in terms of results.

The third theme of this week is in relation to The voice of Wales Call Centres, and there is success for Save Britain Money, as former actress Heledd is successful, firstly in the centre and then in the whole competition. Heledd is actually somewhere between the extremes of personality seen in Ania and George. She has the confidence of the extroverts and the measured approach of the introverts and is successful with it. The 300 word poem she composes to win the competition is superb and she also demonstrates a knowledge of the fundamental premise of selling; focus on the benefits to the customer, not the features.

Extroverts, like Ania and Hayley bring energy to organisations, but their performance is often characterised by peaks and troughs. Introverts like George provide a steady, but unspectacular performance. But it is those who sit somewhere in the middle, like Heledd, who posibly represent the best bet in sales. Heledd is the current face and voice of Call Centres in Wales and is the perfect choice.

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, The Call Centre Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

The Call Centre – Smiley, Happy People (Sell)

June 4, 2013 1 Comment

The Call Centre – Smiley Happy People (Sell)

negotiationWelcome to a new fly-on-the-wall documentary series which follows the staff of a Call Centre in Swansea. This programme is going to split opinion, as 10 years on from The Office, we see that David Brent is alive and kicking in the form of Nev Wilshire, CEO.

Although he claims never to seen The Office, Nev appears to have the same leadership philosophy; “Happy People Sell”. Its hard to know what impact the cameras have, but the staff working for Nev appear to love him. I’m sure his approach is marmite, and those who stay thrive in it. Those who don’t leave. We did see Nev’s “gut feel” approach to recruitment in action, where he is apparently more interested in character and personality than ability. This approach is consistent with Nev’s yellow/Expressive Social Style. That the business is thriving suggests he’s on to something.

What Nev does have is a clear vision of the type of organisation he wants (“Happy People Sell”) and the values that spring from this vision; energy, fun, and loyalty. Each of these values is illustrated in the programme;

  • energy with Nev getting the new recruits to start their training with a compulsory karaoke  of The Killer’s “Mr Bright Side”
  • fun with the speed dating set up to get Kayleigh in admin happy again
  • and loyalty to Hayley, who cannot cut it as a telesales agent, but finds her niche as the tea lady

On the evidence of the programme, it is shown to have some success, but encouraging laddish behaviour is also shown to have its downsides. Witness a prank taken too far with Hayley’s teabags, sugar and spoons being hidden from her. The joke is carried on too long and she ends up going to her line manager in tears. Neve states that HR “totally despair of me” and exist to keep him (and everyone else) on the straight and narrow.

This was a good first episode which soon progressed from The Office to a more meditative essay on management and leadership and the cost of running your own business. Nev has had his up and downs (millionaire at 28, business failure at 38, successful but divorced at 53) . It becomes obvious that his work is his life, and he acts like a benevolent parent to his children/staff. I can’t wait to see how this series develops over its 5 week run.

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Social Style, The Call Centre, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

The Apprentice Series 9 – Meet the Candidates

May 6, 2013 1 Comment

The Apprentice Series 9 – Meet the Candidates

Fresh from unsavoury headlines caused by the industrial tribunal of former winner Stella English  BBC’s The Apprentice returns to our screens this week. Can it really be Series 9 of The Apprentice? How time flies.

Here I give my initial thoughts on the candidates we will meet this week. Of course, being a BBC programme we have a mixture of ethnic backgrounds, with equal numbers of men & women (8 of each).

courtesy of BBC

Alex courtesy of BBC

 

Alex Mills, 22,  hails from South Wales and his catchphrase is “No nonsense, No nothing” which certainly sounds like some nonsense to me. He describes himself as a Company Director, but it remains to be seen what line of business he is in.

 

courtesy of BBC

Natalie courtesy of BBC

Natalie Panayi tells us she is “All about the money” in what sounds like a mis-quote from Jerry Maguire. She is proud that she is half Greek, but it is unclear what this and her catchphrase mean when taken together. It becomes a bit worrying when Natalie, 30,  tells us that she will give “500%”. So, poor with figures, all about the money and half Greek, so expect some interesting negotiation tactics in the tasks ahead.

 

courtesy of BBC

Neil courtesy of BBC

Neil Clough is a Regional Manager (Soccer Centres) and is 32 years old. “Cheating, lying, I don’t care” Neil tells us, but he doesn’t restrict himself to sharing his tactical approach. No, Neil has a sound game plan – “not to get fired”. Sounds like he can’t lose

 

courtesy of BBC

Rebecca courtesy of BBC

Rebecca Slater, 35, is a Medical Representative and describes herself as “difficult to sum up”. In her audition tape, Rebecca uses a whole lexicon of business buzzwords to describe herself, such as energetic, dynamic and focused, but delivers it in a way that suggests the opposite. Is this a clever tactic or is Rebecca out of her depth? Time will tell.

 

Courtesy of BBC

Sophie courtesy of BBC

“Go big, or Go home. And back yourself”. So says 22 year old Malaysian born Restauranteur Sophie Lau. Sophie also tells us that she is prone “to get annoyed”, so expect fireworks and an early departure.

courtesy of BBC

Tim courtesy of BBC

“I’m definitely a team player, I’m not a Lone Ranger in any sense of the word” says Tim Stillwell, 23, a “Mexican” food entrepreneur. This is either a lie or Tim will find he is on the wrong programme. Tim’s video clip suggests it is a lie.

 

courtesy of BBC

Uzma courtesy of BBC

Uzma Yacoob, 32 own her own make-up brand. She says she has no plan and no tactics, but admits she can come across as too confident. “You guys wont be disappointed”. I will if she lasts more than the first 2 weeks.

 

courtesy of BBC

Zee courtesy of BBC

Twenty seven year old Zee Shah describes himself as “an over achiever” (sic) and takes inspiration from Napoleon; “I am here to conquer” and no doubt eventually meet his Waterloo (is that the location for a task in Week 3

 

courtesy of BBC

Francesca courtesy of BBC

Francesca MacDuff-Varley (32) is  Dance and Entertainment entrepreneur. She tells us she is “prepared to fight to the death to become Lord Sugar’s business partner”. As Francesca has more than a passing resemblance to Stella English, Sugar may well take her up on the offer

 

courtesy of BBC

Jason courtesy of BBC

Jason Leech(29) is a “jack of all trades, master of no career”. He compares himself to Machiavelli, but he’d better have a cunning plan if he is to overcome Sugar’s mistrust of posh-boys

courtesy of BBC

Jaz courtesy of BBC

“Superwoman” Jaz Ampaw-Farr (she’s combined raising 3 kids with a career, you know) considers herself  “the Brad Pitt of the Teacher Training Industry”. Its not clear if this performance will be closer to World War Z or Sezen

 

courtesy of BBC

Jordan courtesy of BBC

Jordan Poulton is a 26 year old Business Analyst from “humble beginnings”. Hard to know if he is genuine, if you still refer to the developing world as the 3rd world. Jordan could be a genuine game player, who will tell people what he thinks they want to hear .

 

courtesy of BBC

Kurt courtesy of BBC

Liverpool lad Kurt Wilson likens himself to Steven Gerrard “not the best technically, but he works hard and gets the best out of it”. This is not a good reflection on Kurt, as he is wrong about SG’s technical ability and therefore his judgement is not to be trusted

 

courtesy of BBC

Leah courtesy of BBC

The one question everyone will ask about 24 year old Doctor, Leah Totton is “Why are you on the programme”? There is nothing in her application to explain what she wants to achieve here. Expect Leah to sink or swim in the first few weeks.

 

courtesy of BBC

Luisa courtesy of BBC

Luisa has a thing about pets; ” I have the energy of a Duracell bunny, the sex appeal of Jessica Rabbit “. She also claims to have a brain like Einstein. Presumably she means the dog in Back to the Future.

 

courtesy of BBC

Myles courtesy of BBC

Myles is highly experienced and is co-founder of a marketing company. His experience is evident from his audition tape where he managed to roll out just about every business speak cliche ever heard. It will be interesting to see how he is received by younger candidates and how much of a “bottom line sales guy – the numbers never lie” guy he really is.

Filed under Influential Communication, The Apprentice, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Margaret Thatcher; Saviour or Style Victim?

April 9, 2013 Leave a comment

margaret_thatcherMargaret Thatcher; Saviour or Style Victim?

The death of Margaret Thatcher has brought a deluge of comment and opinion (just try googling her name). But what type of leader was Margaret Thatcher? Was she a Saviour, as some people have suggested, or the Devil made flesh? To me, Thatcher was a victim of Style. Communication or Social Style that is.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a piece on the Driving Social Style, as typified by Lords Alan Sugar. You read about this style here . In that article, I mentioned that Margaret Thatcher is the other (stereo)typical example of the Driving Style; needing to be in control, hiding their emotions, apparently cold and, even, uncaring, with a strong preference to get the job done, even at the expense of relationships. With an expression like “the Lady’s not for turning” you almost get the mission statement for the Driving Style.

Several of the comments from people who actually knew her, rather than just being exposed to her public persona, have said that  although she could appear hard in public, in private she had a caring side. This was evidenced by her apparently personally writing to the families of every serviceman who died in the Falkland’s crisis. Maybe what we saw is not exactly who she was, but it is natural that we judge a person by what they do. This is where the Saviour or Demon labels come in; it depends where you are looking at that behaviour from, and how it relates to your personal values.

Margaret Thatcher may have been disliked by many people (possibly even hated) but the majority of commentators have indicated that, even amongst her enemies, she was respected. Interestingly, she is possibly more revered outside of the UK than in it, and she certainly defined a certain British image associated with her time as Prime Minister.

But what of her legacy? What impact did her style have on those who followed? John Major is the archetypal Analytical Style; Blair is harder to pin down, being either versatile or inconsistent, depending on how you look at it, but probably responds more to “people” than either of his predecessors. As such, Blair is possibly an Amiable, with a strong need for acceptance and wanting to achieve consensus. His body language, is however, ambiguous and hard to read.

Gordon Brown is another Analytical in the mold of Major, and this style is the really cool and aloof one, though attention to detail is a strength, which is why history may say both Brown and Major were better Chancellors than PMs. Neither were blessed with great charisma. Blair had Charisma, but more style than substance? Perhaps.

David Cameron is interesting, as he is somewhere between Blair and Major. Amiable-Analytical perhaps? Like Thatcher, he is leading the country at a difficult time, but seems to want to project an image of someone who makes tough decisions, but with compassion. Time will tell if this genuine, or  not, as the majority of public opinion on Blair seems to believe.

For me, Margaret Thatcher defined my youth and early career. I learned a lot form observing her leadership style. What works and what doesn’t. Thatcher possibly lacked versatility and was a victim of her style, but this undoubtedly helped her to achieve what successes she had. It also probably hindered her from taking more people with her on the journey.

 

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Social Style, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Young Apprentice 2012 – Final Thoughts… or why its time that Young Apprentice should be fired

December 21, 2012 2 Comments

business planYoung Apprentice 2012 – Final Thoughts… or why its time that Young Apprentice should be fired

And the winner is…unexpected. Young Apprentice limped across the finish line as the third series came to a conclusion last night. I have commented several times that this bunch of would-be entrepreneurs has been disappointing and nothing that I saw last night changed my mind. In the end the result was academic (literally) with neither member of the winning team, Lucy or Ashleigh, having a clear idea of how they would invest Lord Sugar’s £25K. In their ongoing education…probably. That Sugar chose Ashleigh over Lucy, therefore, doesn’t really matter. In the end he went for Ashleigh, but I’m really not sure why.

The final task was to design a range of clothing for a defined market along with a marketing campaign incorporating a viral video and then pitch it to industry experts. Sugar wisely split up the two loudmouths (Ashleigh and Maria) and paired each with one of the timid toads (Lucy and Patrick respectively).

The majority of the programme followed how the more refelctive toads gradually got heard and the loudmouths were gagged! Although Patrick did assert himself, he did it behind Maria’s back, rather than confront her. This resulted in an ill-chosen idea of using a mixed age choir for their young urban cyclist themed brand, Cyc. This, added to Maria’s poor choice of colours (too close to the Wimbledon brand), cost their team the task. Of course, this perfectly reflects the modus operandi for these 2 candidates; Patrick apparently creative, but often with poor ideas; Maria opinionated and not listening, with a strong inner belief. Her idea of market research was to ask one middle aged cycle shop owner what he thought!

Lucy allowed Ashleigh full control in the early part of the task, then used her creativity to design a decent logo (Release) and ensure consistency in the brand. Her pitch was also excellent, and having on the team task, I expected Lucy, rather than Ashleigh to go on and win. In truth, of the final 4, only Patrick had a clear vision of how he would use the prize money (Clothes Design). But Lucy was the more rounded candidate and should have won.

I’m still not sure what criteria Sugar used to decide on Ashleigh. In truth neither Lucy or Ashleigh made a good clear case for how they would invest Sugar’s money, so perhaps Sugar sees Ashleigh’s drive  as more likely to produce a return. Who knows?

So, a generally poor series ends in a consistent but disappointing manner. If the BBC are going to commission a new series I think they need to recruit real entrepreneurs rather than “aspiring lawyers” or “future accountants”. A far more interesting series, given the BBC’s recent troubles would be a competition to see which BBC Executives should get to keep their jobs as they overcome a different corporate disaster each week.

Bye Bye, Young Apprentice – You’re Fired!

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Sales & Marketing, The Apprentice, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Young Apprentice Week 7 – Double Jeopardy

December 14, 2012 Leave a comment

Lord Sugar. Courtesy of bbc.c.uk

Lord Sugar. Courtesy of bbc.c.uk

Young Apprentice week 7 – Double Jeopardy

It’s the semi final of this year’s Young Apprentice, and in a twist the task started almost immediately after last week’s boardroom. Both teams are informed that in the losing team this week, 2 candidates will be fired.

Six candidates remain; in Odyssey there are Steven, Andrew and Lucy and in Platinum Patrick, Ashleigh, and Maria. After a bit of wrangling, Lucy and Patrick assume the roles of PM. The task; each team has £1500 to spend on  2 items from a list and sell them at the WOMAD (World Music) Festival. The team with the largest sales (plus remaining assets) wins.

The trick here is to choose the best items (i.e. those likely to sell), get them at the best discount to maximise profit and then sell them. In terms of choosing the best items, the fact that only Steven appeared to have any experience of festivals was always going to make it difficult to choose the best items. So both teams dispatched members to do some market research; Andrew for Odyssey went to a shopping mall, where the shoppers didn’t seem to match the likely profile of WOMAD revellers ( older, more affluent, eco-conscious, possibly with young children). He found out nothing. Ashleigh went to Camden Town, a more likely location and found out some useful information. Unfortunately, what she did find out was ignored by her pm, Patrick, who had already decided on the items he wanted!

Lesson: If you don’t know your market, do some focused research and pay attention to what you learn.

Both teams decided they liked the portable disposable loos. Patrick wanted the umbrella that can also be used as a seat (or bum rest at least). Both good choices you would think, given English summer weather. Odyssey were interested in the portable washing machine (really? at a festival??) and the Onesies – one piece animal costumes. Platinum got the nod for the portable loo despite having offered a lower price. This was due to heavy handed negotiation and a lack of enthusiasm for the product from Odyssey’s Steven.

Lesson: When you are competing to get rights to a product, negotiating the price needs to be coupled with clearly demonstrated enthusiasm for the product. Steven got this wrong.

The last part of the strategy is to sell the product. The portable loos eventually became a seller for Platinum, but only once they had reduced the asking price (even at this reduced price the profit was a handy 50%). The umbrella seats proved more difficult to move due to the sunny weather on the day.

For Odyssey, the washing machine was a non-starter. As Andrew himself realised, this would be perfect for the “Glamping” (glamorous camping) market. Festival goers usually bring enough clothes to see them through  and don’t want to spend time washing! The Onsies did sell, and became the focus of Odyssey’s campaign.

In the boardroom it was revealed that Platinum had won, but only by about £30. They had the better products, especially the loo versus the washing machine, and product selection proved to be important. However, Odyssey did well with the Onesies. A better second product (such as the face paints which everyone, especially the children, were wearing, as was pointed out by Sugar) would have won the task for Odyssey.

Of the 3 candidates in losing team Odyssey it was no surprise that Lucy survived, though Sugar dragged it out. She had not previously been in the bottom 3. Andrew was a perpetual loser (6/7) and only just survived last week and Steven’s aggressive approach to negotiation cost the team the portable loos, and probably the task, so both had to go too.

So 4 remain; The Fish Wife (as we say in the North East) Maria; The Ghost (Patrick), The One-Trick Pony (Patrick) and the All-Rounder, and my favourite to win, Lucy.

Next week’s it’s the final, but who will be sainted and who will be scrooged?

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Sales & Marketing, The Apprentice, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Young Apprentice Week 6 – Team fails to gel in hair product disaster

December 7, 2012 1 Comment

Alan SugarYoung Apprentice Week 6 – Team fails to gel in hair product disaster.

Lord Sugar yet again mixed up the teams in the week’s Young Apprentice. Like a DJ trying to find that elusive blend, or maybe it’s just a reflection of the lack of obvious talent in this year’s bunch, Maria ended up with Ashleigh and Patrick in Platinum (I think, it’s so confusing). Odyssey now had a team of 4; Andrew, Steven, Lucy and Navdeep. With only 7 candidates and 3 weeks left personality was always going to play a big part this week.

The task was to design a concept for a new hair product. Note: not the actual product. No chemicals were involved, just design and a pitch. In Odyssey, Andrew was pm and the team settled on the idea of a brand that would help men to stand out from the crowd. Their first, and critical error, was falling in love with the name Chameleon, and not realising that this means to blend in, not stand out. This was later compounded when the focus group loved the name.

Over in Platinum, the team targeted girls with the somewhat bizarrely named  “Strexy” (it’s strong and sexy see?). Their approach was to be as tacky as possible, and in this they succeeded. But whereas Odyssey had an unclear brand strategy (brand concept, name and target audience didn’t fit), Platinum had focus and direction, albeit with a pretty crap product.

The rest of the programme showed just how dysfunctional both teams were as individuals tried to shine. They still haven’t realised that working as a team and winning the task is still the only guaranteed way to avoid getting fired. Odyssey’s journey went from bad to worse as they realised at the 11th hour that Chameleon didn’t fit the brand concept. Rather than change either the name or the target market, pm Andrew carried on regardless. This was in spite of the rest of the team trying to persuade him otherwise.There was even a first (I think) when an exasperated Nick Hewer told the team they needed to get on with it. I’ve never seen one of the observer’s get involved in the task before, so things must have been bad.

This lack of belief in the product came out in the pitch, when the usually reliable Navdeep gave a poor performance. Selling an idea or a product is as much about confidence as it is about the product. If both are poor, you have no chance.

That Platinum won the task was down to the product and not the team. Maria and Ashleigh disagreed on everything, and Patrick drifted into the background, finding his niche (ironically) as a would-be macho voice-over man.

In the boardroom, it was revealed that Strexy had stood out more than Chameleon (naturally). Andrew chose to bring back Navdeep and Steven (whom he had worked with throughout the task). Lucy survives for another week. All of the team were united that Andrew was to blame for the failure of leadership, and not making critical decisions. Sugar agreed, citing the decision not to change name or concept as the critical error. Navdeep’s poor pitch was also highlighted, but all of the evidence pointed to Andrew being fired and he should have been. A tearful Andrew waited for the finder of death, but instead in a genuine surprise it was Navdeep who went. I still can’t work out how Sugar came to this conclusion. Yes, she was a one trick pony who suddenly couldn’t do the trick, but at the very least Andrew should have gone as well. Amazing and illogical.

Apparently next week there is a double firing. It should have been this week. This series has been poor and it just hit a new low. The candidates are poor, and Sugar’s decision making defies logic. Young Apprentice has always been a television programme, but this week we saw just how much the television agenda is obviously leading the purported purpose of the programme. Poor

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Sales & Marketing, The Apprentice, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →