While big-time Hollywood studios and investors throw massive piles of cash at CGI-filled slagheaps, many independent and first-time movie-makers are shooting films on shoestring budgets with the hope of hitting the jackpot. So, perhaps now the economy has nose-dived and easy credit is but an embarrassing memory we might have the serendipitous pleasure of seeing some new no-budget classics join this list of the 10 most profitable movies ever made (my money’s on the £45 ($75) zombie flick Colin).

[Note on figures: Budgets are estimated/confirmed production budgets (i.e. not including marketing costs, post-production etc). Box office revenues are estimated/confirmed worldwide gross box office sales (thus not indicative of actual net profits or investor returns). All figures collated from various reputable sources including Box Office Mojo, The Numbers and Variety. Films are listed in order of budget to revenue ratio.]

10. Rocky (1976)
Production Budget: $1,000,000
Box Office Revenue: $225,000,000
Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:225
He may be a champ but the Italian Stallion only just scraped his way on to the list (Halloween’s Michael Myers was slashing at his heels). Written in just 3 days and shot in just 28, cinema’s finest and much-loved underdog sporting movie went on to scoop the Best Picture Oscar and made a star out if its writer/lead actor. It’s a shame that Apollo Creed knocked the talent out of him.

9. Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Budget: $114,000
Box Office Revenue: $30,000,000
Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:263
George A. Romero’s debut established him as one of the kings of low-budget movie-making and injected new life into a genre that had grown as stale as one of his shambling zombies. A politically sly, magnificently bleak, taboo-breaking and highly influential B-movie masterpiece.

8. El mariachi (1992)
Budget: $7,000
Box Office Revenue: £2,040,920
Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:292
The inventive cost-cutting tactics that Robert Rodriquez employed to make his debut feature are legendary. Having raised much of the production budget by taking part in medical experiments he rewrote the guerrilla filmmaking rulebook, shooting El Mariachi with just one camera, a head full of inventive movie-making shortcuts and a new set of tits growing on his back. Probably.

Originally intended only for release on the Hispanic home video market, El Mariachi went on to form the first (and best) part of Rodriguez’s increasingly expensive and ludicrous Mexico Trilogy.

7. The Brothers MacMullen (1995)
Budget: $25,000
Box Office Revenue: $10,426,506 (US domestic gross only)
Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:417
Edward Burns wrote, directed, produced and starred in this critically acclaimed comedy drama about the lives of three Irish Catholic brothers. It seems that Burns kept the budget low by shooting mostly in his family home. And having his characters do nothing more than sit around talking. (This is mere speculation as I haven’t seen it; please let me know if it features any mind-blowing action scenes).

6. Super Size Me (2004)
Budget: $65,000
Box Office Revenue: $29,529,368
Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:454
About five years ago this image of a gobful of fries framed by a ginger horseshoe ‘tache was almost as ubiquitous as the Golden Arches themselves. A revelatory exploration of the hitherto unknown detrimental health effects of fast food (who’d have thought it?), the rapid word-of-mouth and extensive media coverage led to a super size profit margin for Morgan Spurlock et al, and another PR nightmare for Ronald McDonald.

5. Mad Max (1980)
Budget: $200,000
Box Office Revenue: $99,750,000
Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:499
With box office takings of nearly 500 times the production budget, as both movie and investment prospect, Mad Max kicks arse. The groundbreaking success of George Miller’s apocalyptic directorial debut helped put Australia on the cinematic map and launched the career of one of Hollywood’s biggest egos. Not bad for a film that was funded largely by the director himself and investments from Australian car mechanics.

4. The Road to Ruin (1928)
Budget: $2,500
Box Office Revenue: $2,500,000
Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:1000
According to Kevin Brownlow’s exhaustive chronicle of social commentary cinema of the silent era, Behind the Mask of Innocence, this movie, shot on the cheap in ten days, “held some kind of record for its box office success”. Given the figures above (which are backed up by Brownlow’s research), it hasn’t dropped too far down the list – even after 80 years.

In keeping with the exploitation genre’s trashy self-righteousness, the movie itself was a titillating voyeuristic vision of a young girl’s descent from decency into alcoholism, prostitution, abortion and – in the obligatory tacked-on moralistic ending – death. Brilliantly, though banned in some US cities for its lewd content, in others it was shown to children for educational purposes.

3. Deep Throat (1972)
Budget: $22,500
Box Office Revenue: $45,000,000 (US domestic gross only)
Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:2000
Which brings us nicely to Deep Throat – one of cinema’s most controversial successes. Indeed, its inclusion here is no exception to since the surreptitious nature of the movie’s production, distribution and financing has stirred much debate over definitive figures for its budget and revenue.

Often described, unofficially, as the most profitable movie ever made, some sources, such as the 2005 documentary Inside Deep Throat, put its worldwide revenues at $600m – which would put it way out in the lead in this chart – though such immense figures have been refuted as publicity-baiting exaggeration on behalf of the documentary-makers. Therefore, since I could find no backed-up estimates of its worldwide gross, I’ve erred on the side of caution and used a reasonable estimate of the movie’s US domestic earnings to calculate the budget/revenue ratio – and it still made the top three.

2. Tarnation (2004)
Budget: $218.32
Box Office Revenue: $1,162,014
Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:5323
Tarnation is a cathartic autobiographical documentary charting the life of Jonathan Caouette and his difficult relationship with his mentally-ill mother. The Cannes Film Festival hit was created from the home videos, photos, answer machine messages and pop culture paraphernalia that Caouette had collected over the years and edited himself using his Apple Mac’s iMovie software. (Though the production budget was credit card-friendly, it should be noted that many sources reported that an additional, and not insubstantial, $400,000 was spent on post-production for the theatrical release).

1.The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Budget: $35,000
Box Office Revenue: $248,300,000
Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:7094
There are only three things that stick in my mind about Blair Witch: tedious forest rambles, the leading lady’s snot and, most vivdly, the unremitting barrage of hype that turned a resourcefully-produced, no-budget horror into a ground-breaking global hit that went on to make over 7,000 times what it cost to produce.

Like many of the movies on this list the marketing costs far outweighed the production budget, but in a shrewd and pioneering move the creators made the internet its publicity bitch, creating its own mythology and stoking online rumour mills. A practice that Hollywood has been milking ever since.

Go compare this list to our previous article on the 10 Most Expensive Movies Ever to see what Hollywood would rather put its megabucks into…

Serious critisicm of the company has grown steadily over the last few decades as concerns over ethical and environmental issues have become more prevalent around the world. Public disapproval peaked a few years ago with McDonald’s regularly heading lists of the most unethical companies amidst a barrage of bad press and political pressure.

The resulting backlash drove customers away causing a significant slump in profits. The last couple of years, however, have seen the company’s fortunes recover with their massive PR machine chugging away, fruit and salad on the menus and sales back on track.

So what’s the beef? Well, let’s remind ourselves of some of the McControversies surrounding McDonald’s McBusiness McPractices. (I promise I’ll stop doing that now).

Unhealthy Products
Having sold an estimated 100 billion hamburgers, the most common and fundamental criticism levelled at McDonald’s over the years has concerned the nutritional value of its food products. Throughout the last few decades, as diet and obesity have come into the public spotlight, purveyors of “junk-food” have found themselves on the receiving end of increasing castigation.

Popular criticism of the poor (or detrimental) nutritional quality of McDonald’s products surely peaked with the hugely successful documentary Super Size Me (2004), in which film-maker Morgan Spurlock put himself through the brave/stupid experiment of living on McDonald’s food exclusively for an entire month (not sure if that one’s covered by your health insurance!). The consequences for Spurlock’s health were severe, the consequence for McDonald’s was a PR nightmare.

This barrage of bad press and public pressure resulted in a series of damage-limitation measures from Ronald and his PR pals – introducing “healthy” items to the menu, battling lawsuits filed by obese customers, listing nutritional information on food packaging and generally trying to assure consumers, governments and industry watchdogs that the company truly cares about health and nutrition, not just profits.

Aggressive Advertising
With an annual advertising budget topping $2bn, McDonald’s has built one of the most recognisable brands in the world – as Eric Schlosser puts it in his book Fast Food Nation (2001), the “Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross”. The disconcerting problem here is that the company’s marketing aggressively targets children, and fears have grown over their increasingly pervasive strategies.

Alongside the bombardment of TV adverts, kiddie-friendly food products, collectible toys, play areas and birthday parties in restaurants, McDonald’s also implements vast campaigns and promotions in schools, youth-oriented community schemes, hospitals and other places that many consider should be out-of-bounds to corporate marketing. A dispiriting recent study backed these fears by showing that the McDonald’s branding had a major influence on the eating preferences of children as young as 3 years old.

McDonald’s advertising model is neatly epitomised by their mascot, the all-round freaky-looking clown bastard and scourge of coulrophobic burger fans the world over, Ronald McDonald: designed solely to entice children, colourful, ethically questionable and slightly scary.

Hindering Free Speech
With frequent allegations of malpractice and a legion of vociferous critics, McDonald’s has had to devote a great deal of resources to tackling criticism in order to keep the Big Macs selling. However, by employing unethical methods in their attempts they have often provoked further condemnation. This was most obvious during one of the company’s most detrimental and embarrassing episodes (and the longest court case in British history): the “McLibel” trial (which is comprehensively documented here).

The trial was a classic “David Vs. Goliath” story with two London Greenpeace activists (not to be confused with the international Greenpeace), Helen Steel and David Morris (pictured above), in one corner and the colossal food corporation in the other. As demanded by the twisted UK libel laws, the pair were forced to represent themselves due to a lack of legal aid and tasked with proving every allegation made in the offending article: What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know, a 6-page pamphlet which they had published and distributed covering many of the issues included here (uh oh!)

Predictably, in 1997 the Judge delivered a verdict ruling in favour of McDonald’s and awarding them £60,000 in damages. However, he upheld many of the pamphlet’s allegations including cruelty to animals, exploitation of workers and children and misleading advertising. This was a victory for McDonald’s in a legal sense only – their use of underhand tactics and exploitation of their considerable financial/legal weight to stifle freedom of speech and silence criticism that was in the public’s interest had been documented and publicised around the world. Furthermore, Steel and Morris won a subsequent appeal in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which ruled that the original trial had been a breach of their human rights.

Deforestation
Our societies’ ravenous demand for cheap meat has been a major factor in the decimation of the planet’s rainforests. Huge areas of forest have been destroyed to make room for modern agricultural and large-scale cattle-raising operations, the products of which are aimed at the cheap export market, and usually end up in the US and European fast food industry.

Though not directly involved, McDonald’s has been linked to deforestation on many occasions. The McLibel trial, for example, involved allegations regarding the company’s sourcing of beef from farms situated on recently deforested land in Costa Rica, Guatemala and other countries. But most damagingly, the issue was raised in the 2006 Greenpeace report Eating Up The Amazon in which McDonald’s patronage of Brazil’s huge soya farming industry (using the products for chicken feed) was strongly condemned claiming the industry was responsible for mass deforestation as well as illegal land-grabs and slave labour.

Increasing pressure in the wake of the report lead to a moratorium on soya crops from Brazil’s deforested areas, and McDonald’s quickly distanced itself from the industry’s unethical practices by assuring environmentalists that they would do their utmost to protect the planet’s rainforests in a display of altruistic PR posturing. It would seem that no trees die in the making of McNuggets anymore.

Homogenisation/Globalisation
McDonald’s, along with that other ubiquitous US brand – Coca Cola, has long been a symbol of globalisation. The staggering success and worldwide proliferation of McDonald’s carbon-copy franchise organisation means that it has become indelibly linked to the homogenisation of global culture, a process which for many people is a deplorable process and a direct attack on the rich cultural variety of our planet.

McDonald’s has exported its brand of American fast food cuisine around the globe, and despite a nod to national culinary variations between countries (the Teriyaki McBurger in Japan and the McCurry Pan in India, for example) – in the pursuit of money rather than the preservation of cultural diversity – the food, and the whole dining experience in general, is essentially the same the world over.

As with the issue of dead-end employment and the “McJob”, McDonald’s affiliation with the processes of homogenisation and globalisation is so established that it has inspired popular neologisms. Sociologist George Ritzer turned the company into a verb in The McDonaldization of Society (1993) which argued that people have learned to sacrifice quality for certainty. Whilst Benjamin R. Barber extended this two years later by coining the term McWorld the (terribly titled) Jihad Vs. McWorld (1995), in which he criticised neoliberal economics and corporate globalisation as exemplified by company’s such as McDonald’s.

Those crafty marketing executives know exactly what makes us tick: they take a picture of whichever ‘celebrity’ tosspot they think is currently ‘hot’ and slap it onto the advert for whatever overpriced piece of crap they’re trying to sell and like lobotomised, star-struck automatons we scurry along to the nearest sterile, over-lit shopping centre to hand over our hard-earned cash. Well not quite. But with the tedious regularity of a vegan’s bowel movements those in charge of swollen corporate marketing budgets (cost passed on to the consumer) adhere to this tried and tested formula.

Occasionally, however, the resulting ad campaigns turn out to be forehead-slappingly ill-conceived, while others prove initially successful only to be scuppered by some external event. This often results in a ripple of consternation that threatens all parties involved. These PR faux pas don’t make our lives of endless consumption better in any way – but instead of those marketing/celebrity types all sitting around with their self-satisfied haircuts on and patting themselves on the back while they count their bonuses we get the chance to laugh at their stupidity and misfortune instead. It’s what Bill Hicks would have wanted.

Eric Clapton – Michelob
Find yourself a guitar legend, film them playing one of their hits in a moody and atmospheric setting and include plenty of classy shots of your product and, bingo: you’ve just made a stylish commercial that’s going to prove wildly successful, win awards, boost brand image and cause sales to go through the roof. Right? Well, that would be the case unless your guitar legend is battling alcoholism and your product is beer. In that case the ad would just give out all sorts of awkward messages and connotations, especially in the days before the sobering ‘drink responsibly’ caveats.

After the Michelob advert was aired in 1988 it was reported in Rolling Stone that Clapton was undergoing treatment for alcoholism during filming. The shrewd and fastidious marketing department at Anheuser-Busch, the beer’s manufacturer, consequently decided that their new spokesperson might not be the right man for the job and terminated the contract. Great job guys.

Michael Phelps – Frosted Flakes
The World’s Greatest Swimmer™ is no stranger to the world of advertising. His long-standing sponsor, Speedo, latched on to him early on in his career. But it wasn’t until his staggering performance at the 2004 Athens Olympics and his record-breaking medal tally at this year’s Games that his list of corporate sponsors and official endorsements grew exponentially to make him one of sport’s highest-earners from advertising promoting Visa, Omega, Matsunichi, PowerBar and MacDonalds among others.

Despite earning huge amounts of money and some negative press for his dubious endorsement choices, it was his decision to sign with Kellogg’s to promote their Corn Flakes and Frosted Flakes (that’s Frosties for us in the UK) brands that created the biggest furore. Since American sportspersons’ traditional choice of cereal-based endorsement is the comparatively healthy Wheaties, nutritionists and pressure groups castigated Phelps for putting money before the health of a nation.

Pope Leo XIII – Mariani Wine
Sometimes celebrity endorsements only seem unsuitable in hindsight, as is most certainly the case here. Vin Mariani was a massively popular product during the mid-late nineteenth century, it could be thought of as the Coca Cola of its time. Although the drink’s success was due, in part, to the physical effects and addictive properties of one of its main ingredients – cocaine – the role of the wine’s eponymous creator, French chemist/manufacturer Angelo Mariani, must not be overlooked. For Mariani is not only accredited with introducing the West to the delights of cocaine-based tonic drinks, but also with pioneering the art of the celebrity endorsement. A big round of applause for Angelo please.

Pope Leo XIII was an avid fan of the wine – he was known to carry a Mariani-filled personal hipflask at all times, and, most significantly, he bestowed the product with a Vatican Gold Medal. Of course, he didn’t have the benefit of our knowledge of cocaine today; in his time it was a highly sought after and fashionable medicinal item rather than a controversial banned substance. And he wasn’t the only prominent figure utilised in the Mariani marketing machine – as Steven B. Karch’s A Brief History of Cocaine documents, other famous endorsers included H. G. Wells, Thomas Edison and Sandra Berhardt – but the Leo’s official Catholic Church seal of approval is considered by some to be a factor in the proliferation of the drug throughout the west during the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. Whoops.

Carol Vorderman – FirstPlus
Carol Vorderman certainly knows her mathematics. In fact her favourite pastime probably involves counting the piles of cash she earned as the face of the UK’s largest debt consolidation company, FirstPlus. In a long-lasting and downright shameless exploitation of her status as respected TV personality and, notably, someone who is good with figures, she headed the FirstPlus adverts for 10 years urging cash-strapped daytime television viewers to risk their homes for some extra cash.

Mounting concerns over the financial dangers of secured loans and other such products resulted in a public outcry against celebrity endorsements fearing people were being lead into debt problems. Vorderman herself came under fire in May 2006 when the BBC aired a programme highlighting the case of two FirstPlus customers who took out a loan after seeing a Vorderman-fronted advert. Two charities, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service (CCCS) and Credit Action, subsequently teamed up with a financial website petitioning for her to terminate her contract with the company. Widespread press condemnation followed, but it didn’t stop there – the issue was even raised in parliament when an Early Day Motion concerning the “rising levels of secured debt, due in part to celebrity endorsement” cryptically referred to “individuals who are well known for their mathematical skills”.

Vorderman’s contract survived the public pressure however, and her regular paycheques only came to an end this August when FirstPlus closed to new customers. But don’t worry, Vorderman made plenty of money as an advocate of the culture of easy lending that lead to the credit crunch; I’m sure she won’t need a loan anytime soon.

Kate Moss – H&M, Chanel, Burberry
Kate Moss takes drugs. Shocked? Didn’t think so. What’s most surprising is that pictures of Ms Moss using her credit card for something other than an extravagant shopping spree were not published earlier.

The ‘shock revelation’ came about in 2005 when pictures from a secret video of Moss snorting cocaine were published in The Daily Mirror. The supercilious tabloid press were subsequently whipped into a rabid frenzy of finger-wagging causing concern for the many companies which used Moss as their poster girl. Some said they would stand by her despite the allegations (those of the “no such thing as bad publicity” school); but with other companies (H&M, Chanel and Burberry) Moss got dropped quicker than a diet pill at a fashion show. Despite not being officially charged for drug offences the condemnation reached dizzying levels – one subsequent report saw Moss being personally blamed by Columbia’s vice president for fuelling civil war in his country.

True to its nature, however, the inexorable marketing machine rumbled onward. Moss’s personal earnings were reported to have doubled since the coke debacle, and her new fashion collection has recently been launched in the UK high street store, Top Shop. You should probably get them while you can – next week’s revelatory pictures of Kate throwing a midget at a giant panda’s testicles whilst smoking in a designated No Smoking area may cause a rethink of their new autumn collection. Maybe.

With the US Presidential Election looming on the horizon in just a few short months and the campaign trail hotting up, the issues that are relevant to the American public are coming under scrutiny. It’s no wonder when you think just how many problems George W Bush will be leaving behind for the next lucky man to sort out. With the economy in such a state, the business sense of both John McCain and Barack Obama is coming into question with some rather unfavorable statements being made about both men.

However, on balance, McCain just beats out Obama when it comes to answering the question of who is a better businessman. There are several reasons why McCain is a better businessman than Obama, 5 of which are outlined below so you can see for yourself just why the Republicans might be a better choice for sorting out the economy than the Democrats:

1. Unwavering Principles – One thing that John McCain can never be accused of is changing his mind too often. No matter what he sets his mind on, that’s it. This makes him an excellent businessman because he has the conviction to follow through on his decisions and will never sit on the fence. Take the Iraq War for example. McCain has never backed down from his conviction that it was the right thing to do, regardless of how many others around him did. However, McCain is not the first man to have had unwavering principles and stood up to be counted when necessary. History has proved that the best businessmen are those that will take risks and put themselves on the line if they believe it is the right time and the right thing to do. McCain is no different, but Obama has yet to show any distinct signs of this until now. If McCain is putting himself out there then Obama is definitely sitting firmly on the fence.
2. Experience – It’s no secret that Obama is slightly younger than McCain. In fact, that’s the understatement of the year, but McCain’s experience has got to count for something. He is not as politically green as Obama and can see through those people that are being insincere and would stab you in the back as look at you. Obama does not seem to have that down just yet. As such, McCain is less likely to get duped and manipulated into doing something that he doesn’t feel is necessarily right. This is the signature of a good businessman.
3. Taxes – The issue of taxes has been a massive one as the American economy has struggled in recent months, largely thanks to the credit crunch. Somehow, and nobody is quite sure how, McCain’s tax promises have managed to please the majority of society. He has proposed to leave tax levels as they are, meaning the rate of corporate tax is only 25%. This has pleased greedy corporations for obvious reasons but it’s also pleased small businesses because it gives them a fighting chance of survival. He seems to have everyone on his side. This is definitely the mark of a good businessman. Obama, on the other hand, has pledged to increase taxes for corporations and lost votes in the primaries because he wasn’t credible on his economic policy. As such, they’re complete opposites!
4. His Support – Like any good businessman, John McCain has solid heavyweight support behind him. He has more corporate power players than anyone else and received more than his fair share of the popular vote in the Republican primaries and caucuses. His ability to negotiate, please all sides and promise the world has obviously worked wonders. However, he’s got to deliver before he really proves himself as an expert negotiator and true businessman. Obama isn’t even in the running here either. He only seems to be pleasing the common man, and even then only those that don’t bear malice given the chequered racial history of the country.
5. Charisma – Finally, every good businessman has to have some form of charisma to be able to carry a room, to captivate the audience and to make them listen to what he had to say. Obama doesn’t really have that. He’s OK to listen to for a while I guess, but McCain can really hold the crowd in the palm of his hand. The passion and authority he has in his voice just blows Obama out of the water!

I was listening to a radio chat show yesterday, which I never normally do, but the host was ranting about clichés. Why we use them, what they mean and how they are generally annoying… and let’s face it they really are. We talk in clichés all the time while the person we happen to be talking to grits his teeth and pretends to understand what the hell it is you’re talking about. It definitely bugs the hell outta me! In no social situation is talking in clichés acceptable, but there is one situation that you should avoid using them at all costs – the job interview.

Did you know that most bosses would turn your job application down immediately if they so much as hear a cliché? Well, very specific ones anyway. The reason for this is that they hate bullshit, pure and simple. Clichés definitely fall into the bullshit category, but there are ten you should never ever use. Reading between the lines, they reflect badly on you.

Check out the list and be sure to mark them “DO NOT USE” in the deep dark depths of your memory!

• “At the end of the day…” – The worst cliché in any walk of life! At the end of the day, if you use this in a job interview then the likelihood is that you’re struggling for an answer are looking to ram a point home about your suitability and can’t think of a more eloquent way of putting it, or are just plain bullshitting. Most people use this one in an argument when they think they’re landing the winning punch. It usually turns out that they’re wrong and have no idea what they’re talking about. Now, do you really want to say it in an interview.
• Any other tired old local clichés – The best advice is to stay well away from clichés that are used in the local area because your potential boss will probably have heard them all before and be tired of them. In fact, just stay away from clichés full stop. If you want to come across as sophisticated and professional, slang and clichés will do you no favors at all!
• “Well…” – Well…? Well what? If that one word is followed by a major pause then you’re screwed. Plain and simple!
• “I always try my best…” – And? So you try your best but that doesn’t get results. Bosses don’t want a hard worker, they want a hard worker that translates into sales or whatever the job you’re going for says you have to get. The only time to say this in an interview is if it’s followed by “… and I revolutionized the last place I worked for as a result”. Your hard work has to count for something because if it doesn’t, you’re just a loser that slogs his guts out for nothing.
• “I like to work with people…” – Errr, doh! Unless you’re working in a dog rescue centre or alone in a lab then this is just going to make you look stupid. You work with people everywhere you go so don’t state the obvious. Oh, and “I’m a people person” also falls under this category so don’t even think about using that one either.
• “Thanks for inviting me…” You sent in an application! You solicited the invite yourself so don’t patronize the person interviewing you by making it sound like you were asked to go because they found you. If ever there was a phrase to incite instant failure in an interview, this is it. Try “thank you for having me” instead. So much more appreciative.
• “It’s all about the money…” – This is the one reason that you shouldn’t give for wanting any job. Career prospects, a new challenge and because of the company’s reputation sound so much better. Even if it is the truth, you never ever say it out loud.
• “I don’t know” – So you’re asked a question and you have no clue what the answer is. Instead of trying to answer and failing miserably, you take the easy route and own up. You say that you don’t know. Big mistake! Never admit to not knowing the answer to a question in such curt terms. If you don’t know something, shrugging and looking like an idiot is not an option. “I’m not sure” sounds so much better because it sounds like you could know given half a chance.
• “Practice makes perfect…” – You know it does, they know it does, we all know it does. This also makes you sound like an idiot because it’s one of the oldest clichés in the book and because it usually stops the conversation dead in its tracks. Hardly makes you memorable, does it?
• “I’m the best person for this job…” – And? This is another one of those that should be followed by something like “…because I’ve had relevant experience in previous jobs like… etc, etc”. It isn’t a sentence you want to utter without backing it up, but even then how do you know that? Have you met everyone else going for the job? No you haven’t so you’re arrogant and conceited instead. Nice one!