The Apprentice IRL 2009

Elmo

So it is back.

To the mods I put this up pure to avoid taking the main thread of track.

It was piss poor. :mad: And I know many of you who have read previous post of mine with just say it all down to your hate of TV3. But no I enjoyed the series last year and I was looking forward to its return this year, I was even looking forward to "You're Fired" with Brendan O'Connor (I don't even like him).

So I have just caught the last few minutes of the main show and I couldn't get to past the introduction of the celebs on the "You're Fire".

The production values are piss poor. I am very sorry to have to say that. I don't care how little money is put into this series, the producers should be able to produce a show that is nearly a carbon copy of the English series.

Put some make up on all of the contestants, dress them if they can't dress themselves (I know it is reality but I don't think the BBC or NBC would let people go out looking like they did).

I know for many of you this is just another rant on the show, I will take a look at the show again at some stage, and I will prob watch the whole series but it is disappoint to see the producers get it so wrong.

tippdar

i agree with you , the most annoying part was the youre fired bit. boc came across as a bit of a prick ,don't know why they had johanna on, she was useless last year, cheated and got fired. gerald kean was ok and the hb girl the same. theres no comparison with the bbc effort,

the fact that the show was run a few months ago, whats to stop the winner being leaked, i think that happened last year , didnt darcy mention it by accident last year

Elmo

tippdar wrote: »

the fact that the show was run a few months ago, whats to stop the winner being leaked, i think that happened last year , didnt d'arcy mention it by accident last year

I think the BBC version is now in production or will be in production months before it is aired on the BBC.

tinkerbell

I just watched the main Apprentice show - I didn't bother watching the You're Fired show with Brendan O Connor - I can't stand him, he's a complete tool. No interest in watching any show with him on it.

As for the main Apprentice show - what's with the guys they picked? They actually picked the weakest bunch of guys.

imme

I saw it today for the first time, terrible stuff altogether, amateur hour, on all sides.

Elmo

imme wrote: »

I saw it today for the first time, terrible stuff altogether, amateur hour, on all sides.

I still enjoy the show TBH. However what is really annoying is how the Sponsorship from Meteor looks 10 times better and far more money was spent on those few inserts as the main show

I can't watched the You're Fired show.

Sizzler

Its not actually TV3's actual fault the show is so bad though is it? The production house behind the show? TV3 are complicit in that they havent actually realised how poor it is and they continue to air it :mad:

Elmo

Sizzler wrote: »

Its not actually TV3's actual fault the show is so bad though is it? The production house behind the show? TV3 are complicit in that they havent actually realised how poor it is and they continue to air it :mad:

That is a bit of a cop out TBH. It is kind of like saying that many of the bad shows on RTÉ are not RTÉ's fault since they don't produce them. I.E. You're A Star also produced by Shinawil. TV3 commissioned the show and pay for what they get as do RTÉ. I wasn't blaming TV3. I don't think anyone was.

Both the broadcaster and the producers are to blame for the lack of quality and the lack of money put into the show. TV3 should be taking care of this show it is the Top home produce show and it is a good international brand.

I wonder who produced the meteor ads surrounding the show.

willowthewisp

I think the show is brilliant to be honest!

Elmo

willowthewisp wrote: »

I think the show is brilliant to be honest!

TBH I think it is a great show but the production values of both it and the spin off show you're fired is just terrible.

Timothy Bryce

Completely agree with you Elmo - the production value (as with anything on TV3) are terrible.

Does anyone else feel that the makers could be in breach of advertising legislation in some way? Each episode seems to feature I gigantic plug for a product/service....like a 1 hour 10 minute advert/infomercial

Week 1 - HB
Week 2 - Samsung
Week 3 - Big Red Book
Week 4 - B&Q

And on the line up for week 5? Another marketing task for one of the shows sponsors. Hurrah!

Elmo

Timothy Bryce wrote: »

Does anyone else feel that the makers could be in breach of advertising legislation in some way? Each episode seems to feature I gigantic plug for a product/service....like a 1 hour 10 minute advert/infomercial

This was discussed last year on the show. Last year it was a definite yes, no product placement allowed in TV programmes under EU law and the TVWF directive. So TV3 and the producers should have been told so by the BCI.

Now it a bit more difficult, the TVWF Directive has been replaced by AVWF Directive which states: -

Article 3g
1. Product placement shall be prohibited.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, product placement shall
be admissible unless a Member State decides otherwise:
— in cinematographic works, films and series made for audiovisual
media services, sports programmes and light entertainment
programmes, or
— where there is no payment but only the provision of certain goods or
services free of charge, such as production props and prizes, with a
view to their inclusion in a programme.
The derogation provided for in the first indent shall not apply to
children's programmes.
Programmes that contain product placement shall meet at least all of the
following requirements:
(a) their content and, in the case of television broadcasting, their scheduling
shall in no circumstances be influenced in such a way as to
affect the responsibility and editorial independence of the media
service provider;
(b) they shall not directly encourage the purchase or rental of goods or
services, in particular by making special promotional references to
those goods or services;
(c) they shall not give undue prominence to the product in question;
(d) viewers shall be clearly informed of the existence of product
placement. Programmes containing product placement shall be
appropriately identified at the start and the end of the programme,
and when a programme resumes after an advertising break, in order
to avoid any confusion on the part of the viewer.
By way of exception, Member States may choose to waive the
requirements set out in point (d) provided that the programme in
question has neither been produced nor commissioned by the media
service provider itself or a company affiliated to the media service
provider.
3. In any event programmes shall not contain product placement of:
— tobacco products or cigarettes or product placement from undertakings
whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products, or
— specific medicinal products or medical treatments available only on
prescription in the Member State within whose jurisdiction the
media service provider falls.
4. The provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply only to
programmes produced after 19 December 2009.
CHAPTER IIb

I have highlighted where I feel the producers have gone against the AVWF, and highlighted how they get away with it

However product placement remains against the law until 19 of Dec 2009. Basically it is so confusing that they get away with.

Sizzler

Timothy Bryce wrote: »

Completely agree with you Elmo - the production value (as with anything on TV3) are terrible.

Does anyone else feel that the makers could be in breach of advertising legislation in some way? Each episode seems to feature I gigantic plug for a product/service....like a 1 hour 10 minute advert/infomercial

Week 1 - HB
Week 2 - Samsung
Week 3 - Big Red Book
Week 4 - B&Q

And on the line up for week 5? Another marketing task for one of the shows sponsors. Hurrah!

Elmo wrote: »

This was discussed last year on the show. Last year it was a definite yes, no product placement allowed in TV programmes under EU law and the TVWF directive. So TV3 and the producers should have been told so by the BCI.

Now it a bit more difficult, the TVWF Directive has been replaced by AVWF Directive which states: -



I have highlighted where I feel the producers have gone against the AVWF, and highlighted how they get away with it

However product placement remains against the law until 19 of Dec 2009. Basically it is so confusing that they get away with.

I emailed the BCI last year and raised the various product plugs that they ran on the show. It took 6 months for the BCI to complete their "investigation" :rolleyes:

The upshot was they found the show in breach of the code on one show only :eek: The episode where they were selling Renaults in Bill's two dealerships. I asked what the reprimand equated to and the BCI said that it wasnt a public matter FFS.

Based on what elmo has posted above I think every episode thus far is arguably in breach of the code. Cue another email to the BCI!

standardtoaster

Why does this "product placement" annoy you so much?
Personally I thought the first two weeks were fairly poor but it has really picked up in the last two weeks.
Also thought this weeks task was very original especially as it is not something that had been done/touched on before in the UK apprentice.

Tabnabs

AFAIK the "product placement" is part of financing the show. i.e. B&Q, Samsung etc. pay a wad of cash to Shinawil/TV3 for their brand promotion and thereby get a feature in the show. I do know that getting a business figure who could give up the time for filming, wanted the publicity (often fairly adverse) and could afford to meet their end of the contract was a challenge for the production company (as it was for them to find four "Dragon's").

It's a pretty straightforward exchange IMHO and fairly easy to get over it when you understand the reason behind it.

Elmo

standardtoaster wrote: »

Why does this "product placement" annoy you so much?

I thought the first 3 weeks were basically ads for the 3 products involved, the first one made no real sense, selling HB ice cream on the street. The other 2 were how do we advertise/market 2 well known named products, rather than how do we launch a new product.

It is against the law is my main problem with Product Placement and the Regulator should be regulating, that is their job.

AFAIK the "product placement" is part of financing the show. i.e. B&Q, Samsung etc. pay a wad of cash to Shinawil/TV3 for their brand promotion and thereby get a feature in the show.

And this is particularly against the Law. Why bother with a regulator or Laws? Not only that but the production values for the show are shoddy, so not only are TV3, Shinawhil to blame but so are the advertisers.

I do know that getting a business figure who could give up the time for filming, wanted the publicity (often fairly adverse) and could afford to meet their end of the contract was a challenge for the production company (as it was for them to find four "Dragon's").

The 4 dragon's would be different in that Shinawhil would have paid for each of the 4 dragon's to take part.

Based on what elmo has posted above I think every episode thus far is arguably in breach of the code. Cue another email to the BCI!

Don't bother they don't know the law, they aren't interested and they just want an easy time. It is now known as the BAI and you should have complained to the BCC (Broadcasting Complaints Commission) but they really should have transfered you email over to them. You will be glad to here that the BCI and BCC are now part of the new BAI. www.bai.ie

Elmo

Dyflin wrote: »

It's a pretty straightforward exchange IMHO and fairly easy to get over it when you understand the reason behind it.

I think the law is pretty straight forward once you get your head around it. For example Product Placement is against the law on all Children's Programming, it has to be announced that product placement features in programming and that no editorial interference should be placed on the show because of an advertiser e.g. HB, Samsung, B&Q and the Big Red Book etc should not be involved in deciding the tasks or be part of the You're Fired show panel.

Tabnabs

Seriously, this is old news

“In our view, we’ve done everything within the BCI regulations,” said Larry Bass of Screentime Shinawil—a production company involved with TV3’s The Apprentice. “All we’ve done is sold sponsorships around the series and every [one] is a sponsor of the whole series. We’re not doing anything that isn’t in other programmes on other broadcasters.”

source

The BCI looked into it last year and it's still happening. So it's obviously legit. As I said, pretty straightforward...

Sizzler

Dyflin wrote: »

Seriously, this is old news



source

The BCI looked into it last year and it's still happening. So it's obviously legit. As I said, pretty straightforward...

Yes indeed, it is old news, its 10 months old and the article was written BEFORE the BCI adjudicated. I think you will find TV3 were reprimanded subsequently via the BCI (for the Renualt episode in last season).

So if they were doing nothing wrong I suspect the BCI wouldnt have bothered their swiss issuing a warning would they?

Larry Bass is saying he thinks they have done nothing wrong and they are copying other show formats, hardly a robust defence.

DT100

I presume that many people applied to go on that show.If these are the best of the bunch...Christ I would hate to see the others

Elmo

Dyflin wrote: »

Seriously, this is old news

source

The BCI looked into it last year and it's still happening. So it's obviously legit. As I said, pretty straightforward...

No offence but BOLLOCKS.

This is a typically politican answer (no offence), "....but everyone is doing it and the regulator says its okay!"

Most Irish Regulators are LIGHT TOUCH, and just look at the banks. As I said the regulator isn't interested in regulating the broadcast sector in particular the commercial sector. The BAI needs to implement the laws and it is not doing so, it is as clears as day that this is another Regulator unwilling to apply pressure, trust me if we stopped paying the TV licence we would be fined.

Particularly when PRODUCT PLACEMENT IS AGAINST THE LAW, and the limited product placement that is to be enacted leave the producer and broadcaster still in breach of their responsibilities.

The website you quote is a product placement web address they are going to be bias.

DT100

DT100 wrote: »

I presume that many people applied to go on that show.If these are the best of the bunch...Christ I would hate to see the others

who knows what the tv company's selection criteria was - probably nothing to do with commercial acumen though! probably more to do with people that they thought might provide bizarre tv moments!

mockler007

they are all as crap as each other, and that bimbo with the big gawky eyes, i wanna shoot her with an rpg. 100,000gs on those wasters, and thats toss pot that went to harvard, the tosser is a tool, a cheap aldi tool.

Elmo

mockler007 wrote: »

they are all as crap as each other, and that bimbo with the big gawky eyes, i wanna shoot her with an rpg. 100,000gs on those wasters, and thats toss pot that went to harvard, the tosser is a tool, a cheap aldi tool.

I think these are typical reality TV people. Just look at the American version and the British version to see that the producers hand pick goons.