television
The Apprentice 2011: Whose hell is it anyway?
So another series of The Apprentice hits our screens and I am among thousands, if not millions of others blogging, tweeting, texting, talking or (for some) fuming about it. This series has always been billed as “the job interview from hell” and promises tough talk, great action and laughs along the way. But to me it does, and always has begged a few questions:
1) how do you balance actually trying to find genuine business talent in Britain with making good TV?
2) exactly who is really in “hell” throughout this process? The contenders? Lord Sugar (aka “Surrallan” from previous series)? Or the viewer?
3) Do the “contenders” think that this is a genuine business interview process or a glorified TV show designed to make viewers squirm at home while watching people make terrible decisions (about their current project and potentially their future prospects ““ which we’ll come on to) with generally pretty bad ideas, laced with a few “eureka” moments, that will hopefully make them famous?
If the new series is anything to go by my tuppence lands on the theory that even after four series most of these “aspiring tycoons” really don’t know or fully understand what they’re letting themselves in for. They are naive to the way “editing” works in television (if anyone has any illusions as to the magic of TV I recommend they read Ben Elton’s “Chart Throb“) and are likely shouting at the TV like any good celebrity at some of their more “blonde” moments that they were “taken out of context”. That combined with the fact that it seems the series producers are aiming to find ever-more daft contestants to spout ever-more over-rehearsed vox pop rubbish about what a great business mind they have, it sort of takes the “business” out of it and purely focuses on the “entertainment” for me. But then hey, this is TV right? Ratings are king. Nobody would actually be interested in reliving their working day watching people sit round a table and discuss minutes from last meeting, status updates and action plans (for those who live / work in office environs) would they?
But fast forward a few years. Where are they all now and what has the “Apprentice effect” been on their lives? How has it affected their future employability? How many actually use it as the opener to their CV or in an interview? And would a client be impressed or disappointed to find themselves working with an ex-surrallan wannabe who more than likely at some point has been seen vilifying his / her opponents while at the same time being shown to have a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic themselves? Good ol’ Stuart from last year’s series kept referring to himself as a “brand” for which he was shot down nicely by Lord Sugar. But does he have a point? Have any of the contestants considered what their “brand” credentials will be once they’ve finished their ten weeks of filming? How will they be perceived in the ‘real’ business world once they’ve come out from behind the BBC’s curtain?
Bad Wizard of Oz metaphors aside, I do wonder whether the youngsters can really know the effect they’re having on their own futures and whether the older people should know better. Of course there are success stories from The Apprentice and I’ll be quick to take my hat off to those who have seized the opportunity and managed to make it work for them ““ that shows the drive and determination surrallan is likely looking for in his ‘boardroom’ ““ but in the main we come away talking about the idiocies and failures of most of the contestants. We, the viewers, shake our heads in frustration and discuss at length the latest foolish episode by one or other contender and Lord Sugar looks about to tear his hair out or blow a gasket in most of the boardroom scenes. That’s not to mention the researchers, runners, cameramen, producers and Lord Sugar-knows-who-else that have to work with all these “aspiring tycoons” in making the show happen.
So in the end, whose hell is it anyway?
About Us
www.quick-thinking.co.uk
These days, clients don't want agencies which claim to be 'different', they want agencies which are 'better'. As the name suggests, we're fast on our feet. We're quick-witted, we react smartly to briefs and we 'get it'.
We're deep thinkers too. We're strategic. We're clever. And we make a real difference to our clients' businesses.
We have a genuine aversion to unnecessary process. We hate long meetings. We can't stand having people in meetings who have nothing to say. And we really, really, don't like long 'cut n paste' documents which are stacked with jargon.
Recent comments