Dragons' Den

Used to like this but it's unwatchable now thanks to the totally unnecessary and constantly repetitious voiceover from Evan Davis.

Evan: Peter is going to ask about the financials

Peter: Tell me about the financials...

Evan: Peter has asked about the financials.

Hugely padded, over and over and over the same thing.

This is another BBC show that started good but is now made by people who have lost all interest in making it worth watching.

Of course it is flawed, some of the business propositions are ludicrous, and there have been times when the narration has become extremely annoying. Still, Dragon's Den is very interesting to watch. I like the fact that the dragons are straight talking and know what they're talking about, and as a presenter, Evan Davis does have a certain likability about him when he is not annoying that is. Over the years, we have been treated to a number of great inventions, and some hilariously ludicrous ones too. It is also very interesting learning more about how a business is run and all that.

All in all, a perfectly watchable reality show, of course with flaws, but very interesting. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Evan Davis flitters around the set of Dragons Den like a daddy longlegs that has run into a light. Aside from being visually annoying he only seems to be there to tell you things you just saw, are going to see or they didn't have time to show you because of him talking. If that wasn't enough filler for you he has a nice line in generalisations too like "it takes nerves of steel to face the dragons" or "all of todays entrepreneurs are hoping for an investment".

If you ever thought millions of pounds would make you instantly happy take a look at the panel. You've got nervy Deborah Meaden scowling at proceedings while a waxy Duncan Ballentine appears at times to be worked by Peter Jones by way of a lever or something. Kelly Hoppen would be a good investor to work with if you need advice on what shade of brown to paint something but beyond that her presence on the show is mystifying. She's certainly not going to spend any cash and the cameraman seems obsessed with getting shots of her nose. I also feel my lifeforce draining away every time she starts droning on about design.

I do love the show though. Seeing the nonsense people come up with is interesting but you can't help but feel sorry for the ones that have invested their life's savings in an invention that's doomed.

The idea is simple: entrepreneurs pitch ideas to a group of 5 multimillionaire business investors. The investors ask questions of presenters to clarify, expose pitfalls and negotiate the percentages and dollar amounts offered. The presenters state in advance how much they want to raise and if they don't raise the full amount between all the investors, they leave empty handed.

If you have ever tried to raise money, this is one of the best shows to watch. You WILL learn what a good, tight pitch sounds like (as well as what terrible ones are like). Regardless of whether you agree with the decisions made by the investors, it's worth watching for that alone. You'll also learn what kinds of questions you should expect and what you need to know going into such a meeting.

The questions asked are often insightful and penetrating. It's fascinating to watch how good/bad ideas coupled with good/bad presentations play out.

Faults: The narration is somewhat annoying. The narrator generally spills the beans on what an investor is about to say, so the element of surprise is lost. Also, the investors frequently sound derogatory. It's unfortunate, but there's not much one can do about it - these are real people with their own money and not actors. If you're asking for money here, you better have a thick skin.

If you enjoy thinking out new businesses and how to create or expand a company, this show will likely be fun to watch.

Dragon's Den is a welcome relief in the constant scheduling of the usual type of reality show where people generally people sit around whining and/or swearing for no apparent purpose. The idea is that contestants come to a panel of five 'dragons' (highly successful business people) with a project or concept that they hope to get some investment in. The programme focuses on the business pitch and the reaction of the 'dragons'. It is a strong concept, offering an insight into the way that companies start up and hopefully encourages talented individuals into taking the plunge and setting up for themselves, a class of people that the UK lacks at the moment.

However it keeps in the cruelty that the British are so fond of (how else could someone like Simon Cowell become so popular?). Much of the berating is deserved as some contenders try to get hundreds of thousands of pounds for a small fraction of their tiny company whilst being completely clueless about such simple things as their turnover or net profit, but it often comes across as arrogant rich people ridiculing the dreams of ambitious entrepreneurs. The ridiculous nature of some of the products suggests that either screening applicants was limited or they were let through just for the dubious entertainment value of 'the Dragons' making fun of them. The comments are often unnecessarily barbed instead of constructive, and while this is defended as 'cruel to be kind' frequently it sounds more like the panel are trying to outdo each other to get themselves on the trailer. Some of the panel appear a lot more helpful than others, like Richard Farleigh who usually had some good advice for the contestants who were unsuccessful, while Theo Paphitis comes across as the most shrewd of the bunch.

Apparently Peter Jones is leaving which is not much of a loss as recently he has seemed more interested in boosting his ego and trying to be funny than investing - shame he is about as amusing as a documentary about the Holocaust. Lately also the panel seems to be extremely cautious, almost always refusing to take on a project by themselves, instead trying to get a partnership with another Dragon, which takes away from their supposedly bold entrepreneurial nature. The programme has also declined in quality recently due to the editing which allows you to predict which ideas will get investment by the running order and removes most of the tension. The annoyingly insistent commentary by Evan Davis repeating the rules of show and everything that has just gone on in the show also detracts from the viewer's enjoyment.