TiVo Community Forums Archives - The Apprentice (1/29) Spoilers

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

The Apprentice (1/29) Spoilers
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: johndierks

I don't really want to watch anymore.

Nick should have gotten the axe.

Posted by: appleye1

Yep, I agree. And I also feel the guys shouldn't have been in the boardroom to start with.

Posted by: Crash331

Next week they will split, so maybe it won't be so predictable.

I wonder what Donald would have done if Kuami (sp?) would have picked a weak person (Nick) and a strong person (one of the other two). Would Donald think he is smart and kick off the weakest, or would he get pissed and kick off the leader who skewed his choices.

Posted by: Rangers4me

I think the games themselves have become unfair. The men were completely outnumbered, which had to effect their performance. It is much easier to manage a restaurant with eight people, then it is with five. They should have also taken the average sales for the restaurant for the year, instead of doing it based on the sales from that day, the year prior.

Posted by: zyzzx

I thought Bowie getting booted was very predictable. Nick is a very strong character, Kwame did a good job as project manager with the task but Bowie is not very interesting on the show. Keep around the interesting ones when you can and boot the non-interesting ones.

This episode was classic Burnett with the big fake-out in the end. The entire show had the men winning and the women having trouble with the task. Then they reveal that the women had won. They did a good job in the bar area at the very end but from what they aired it didn't seem to be enough to put them over the top.

Anyway, I really like this show.

About next week's episode:

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Wasn't it pretty obvious that they were going to switch up the teams after last night's show? They had to with the numbers being 8-4. It should mix things up and even out any advantages by either sex.

Posted by: daperlman

I am constantly astounded at the ineptitude of both teams, they are given these ridiculous tasks and then when they actually start doing them it is like they are making it up as they go along. If they are going to do a promotion (an air hockey tourney for example) they should have promoted that before the day they were actually managing, instead of switching gears that night?!

In this episode both groups crossed the line. The women created an unacceptable liability by their level of coercion (getting patrons to drink (or drink more)) and then participating. Nick is exactly right, a kid getting home, and finding out that Kwame was not an athlete, is a big deal... something not soon forgotten.

Posted by: rich

The guys had a whole day available to map out a strategy, and what did they do? They worked out, shot baskets, sat around, etc. Sheesh.

Posted by: Carlucci

And we have YET to see any real display of business acumen. Any random group of non-professionals could come up with the same crap they are doing. Don't forget this show is supposed to be a "job interview" for a high paying job in Trumps organization. :rolleyes:

I was proud of Nick for refusing to go along with the unethical ruse the others came up with, by pretending that Kwame was autograph-worthy.

I was also glad to see the ladies get admonished for using their sexuality instead of true business sense. They should have gotten that scolding after episode 1. Now it's moot since the teams will be mixed.

I'll still watch the show. I think you could have a true business-based show, that would still be entertaining if you focus on human conflict among teams, deadline pressures, etc.

Posted by: daperlman

quote:
Originally posted by Carlucci
And we have YET to see any real display of business acumen. Any random group of non-professionals could come up with the same crap they are doing. Don't forget this show is supposed to be a "job interview" for a high paying job in Trumps organization. :rolleyes:

Partly their fault and partly having to do with the stupid tasks they are assigned.

Like the 'negotiating' one last week. ANY of us could have done better than them in about 5 seconds with a computer and the Internet... but what killed me is that none of the men or women, tried to secure the prices via telephone... saving the time the actual trips to get the items took.

Posted by: jschuman

quote:
Originally posted by appleye1
Yep, I agree. And I also feel the guys shouldn't have been in the boardroom to start with.

Why? (Just curious, since the girls won the numbers game by a landslide)

Posted by: dschwab

While I don't think it was something that should've caused the women to lose the challenge by default, they should've been punished somehow for drinking on the job. That is definitely a "fire-able" offense in the restaurant industry, especially in a family-friendly restaurant like Planet Hollywood. Not sure if this is what appleye1 is referring to. Perhaps they should've lost the golfing trip.

Posted by: mp2526

quote:
Originally posted by dschwab
That is definitely a "fire-able" offense in the restaurant industry, especially in a family-friendly restaurant like Planet Hollywood. Not sure if this is what appleye1 is referring to. Perhaps they should've lost the golfing trip.

If they were told before hand, definately, but it looked as if they hadn't been told that until after the fact.

Posted by: jschuman

It would definitely be nice to see a challenge that actually tested their business/managerial skills.

An easy tweak to last nice's challenge would have been to ban the participants from interacting with any customers. So all they could do was provide ideas/incentives to the employees of the Planet Hollywood they were managing.

This is what real managers do all the time (i.e., manage, duh). They don't go out and do the front-line work.

Just a thought...

Edit: This also would have taken the numerical and sexual advantage away from the women (well, mostly. Their increased numbers still would have helped)

Posted by: mp2526

quote:
Originally posted by jschuman

Edit: This also would have taken the numerical and sexual advantage away from the women

I don't know, they still might have provided some incentive the men couldn't :)

Posted by: jschuman

touche! Yet, I think there were just as many female employees as male employees at Planet Hollywood, so the men could actually compete. :)

ok. Family forum, family forum....

Posted by: MacThor

The men (Bill actually) came up with an incentive program for the employees. It looked like it impressed George. I'm sticking to my Week 1 prediction that Bill will win. He certainly has displayed the most business acumen of any contestant; I just wonder if he'll get "Colbied" towards the end of the show. I'm also curious why he hasn't been project manager, although he's "taken over" two tasks.

I doubt there will be a sequel, but if there were, no way would they go "Boys v Girls" again.

Some replies to other thoughts:

Crash, I think Kwame played it just right in the boardroom. Choose Nick, and then everyone else got an A, Bowie just didn't get an A+. Talk about CYA.

Ineptitude, lack of business acumen, right on! My G/F and I are sitting there coming up with better ideas on the fly in the 12 minutes than these contestants are. Sheesh.

Nick was right not to support the "scam" but he handled it wrong. At least come up with something better, instead of pouting on camera. I looks to me like Bill knows Nick is the strongest other man (Bill whispered something to Nick on the way out of the Boardroom) and Nick partly covered himself by distancing himself from the autographs.

The sexual/numbers advantage could have easily been overcome by the "last line change" advantage, if the men had done ANY promotion the day before. Shooting hoops, bonding and playing Trump the game -- or filling your restaurant for the next day? Come on, guys!

Mike, no excuses, the women knew what they were doing was wrong. One of them is a restaurant manager for crying out loud. And while it was nice that Trump & Co finally admonished them for their self-pimping, it was too little (THAT was a scold???) too late. That trampy Philly girl looked like she was going to bust out laughing.

Posted by: TheDewAddict

I've been pretty impressed by Troy. He seems to know what he's doing pretty well. I think the men have (had?) more "stand out" performers, people who take charge. Of course, when you put a bunch of alpha-males together, they just end up fighting for control. The women don't have anyone who has impressed me very much with their business sense.

Posted by: mp2526

quote:
Originally posted by MacThor

Mike, no excuses, the women knew what they were doing was wrong. One of them is a restaurant manager for crying out loud. And while it was nice that Trump & Co finally admonished them for their self-pimping, it was too little (THAT was a scold???) too late. That trampy Philly girl looked like she was going to bust out laughing.

I was referring to the drinking on the job and someone's comment that they should have been fired on the spot. My comment was that they should have been told Planet Holleywoods policy before a firing would have been warranted. Having worked in the restaurant/Bar industry, drinking especially in the bar area is not uncommon. Customer's buy wait staff shot's occasionally. I have worked in establishments where it was and wasn't ok to drink. My point is that they didn't know it was not ok to drink and I'm sure once they found out, they stopped.

Now, on the other hand, they should have realized the liability aspects of having customers ordering lots of booze, I will give you that.

As far as the sexuality stuff, my comments had nothing to do with that.

Posted by: MacThor

Gotcha, Mike. I should have separated my paragraphs better! :)

Do you think they were carding? Some of those patrons looked pretty young. How funny would it have been if one of them got PH cited for serving a minor?

Posted by: daperlman

quote:
Originally posted by MacThor

Do you think they were carding? Some of those patrons looked pretty young. How funny would it have been if one of them got PH cited for serving a minor?

The regular employees were working there, I am sure they took care of that

Posted by: rich

Since these folks are supposed to be "Apprenticing" for Trump, I'd like to hear some suggestions from him after the task was over as to how he would have done it. That way they could be learning something instead of just thrashing around.

Posted by: pdvale

There really seems to be no planning in their activities. Although the men talked to the restaraunt manager, it didn't seem that they got to learn the basic financial workings of a restaraunt. What are high vs. low profit items, successful promotions done in the past, rather than running around like a bunch of cheerleaders.... handing out $5 off..

Show is still somewhat enjoyable although it's loosing it's steam.

Posted by: milo99

the biggest problem i have with the show is something most here have touched on.. kind of anyway.

When given these tasks to test business acument, they're given 1 day (or 2 days for the ad campaign) to accomplish it from inception to completion. I'm sorry, but that's just not a good way to find out who's the best.

You want to find out who's the best President for a company? How do you find out if he's a good negotiator by having them run around Manhattan to get leg wax, buy squid, a golf club etc? There's no planning involved. Part of negiotiation is doing research and knowing what you're negotiating, and who you're negotiating with. In big business *especially*, negotiations take days, weeks, months because people have to go back and forth, simmer over it... i mean really, being able to talk down the price of a cigar is not the same as getting a good deal on a car, a property, or product development agreement.

Running a restaurant- how about giving them some time to plan for promotional activities, incentive plans, etc. How does handing out coupons and pimping drinks show how well you can run a corporation?

Ad campaign - how about allowing them time to do research on the target market for one. Sheesh.

I sure hope the last few tasks are better. These are just too much made for Burnett TV.

Posted by: mp2526

quote:
Originally posted by milo99
the biggest problem i have with the show is something most here have touched on.. kind of anyway.

When given these tasks to test business acument, they're given 1 day (or 2 days for the ad campaign) to accomplish it from inception to completion. I'm sorry, but that's just not a good way to find out who's the best.

You want to find out who's the best President for a company? How do you find out if he's a good negotiator by having them run around Manhattan to get leg wax, buy squid, a golf club etc? There's no planning involved. Part of negiotiation is doing research and knowing what you're negotiating, and who you're negotiating with. In big business *especially*, negotiations take days, weeks, months because people have to go back and forth, simmer over it... i mean really, being able to talk down the price of a cigar is not the same as getting a good deal on a car, a property, or product development agreement.

Running a restaurant- how about giving them some time to plan for promotional activities, incentive plans, etc. How does handing out coupons and pimping drinks show how well you can run a corporation?

Ad campaign - how about allowing them time to do research on the target market for one. Sheesh.

I sure hope the last few tasks are better. These are just too much made for Burnett TV.

All that would imply that this is an actual job interview process. This is not no matter what they say. This is purely entertainment, nothing more. The competitions are done this way, because they are more enjoyable for the audience to watch and then discuss the next day how everyone did it wrong. I highly doubt the winner of this contest will be given a presidential position of a serious Trump business. The winner will either be a puppet head, or Trump will come up with a dummy corp for he/she to run.

Posted by: milo99

quote:
Originally posted by mp2526
All that would imply that this is an actual job interview process. This is not no matter what they say. This is purely entertainment, nothing more. The competitions are done this way, because they are more enjoyable for the audience to watch and then discuss the next day how everyone did it wrong. I highly doubt the winner of this contest will be given a presidential position of a serious Trump business. The winner will either be a puppet head, or Trump will come up with a dummy corp for he/she to run.

yea, that's what its looking like. Trump was on O'Reilly right before the premiere, and i can't remember everything, but I believe he was sticking to the claim that the winner gets a legit job. I don't know. It's annoying though because the show had so much promise, but i'm beginning to get frustrated with it.

Posted by: dschwab

I agree that it would be nice if some of these tasks were drawn out over a week to allow the contestants to truly use some business skills. Give each team a week to run the restaurant where they can form a better plan early in the week, plan promotions, etc. and then judge their performance at the end of the week. It can be edited so that it is still good TV. The same is true for the negotiating task last week, it would have been a better business test if they couldn't had a few days to plan.

And I'd be very surprised if this show didn't return next year. NBC's schedule next year is really weak, and I doubt they give up on this successful show.

Posted by: MacThor

Bill will win, DJT will buy Cigar-of-the-Month, and Bill will be CEO of Trump Fine Cigars!

As for last nights challenge, I had the impression that it was based on sales, not profits. So knowing the margins would have been less important than turning over tables and moving merchandise.

<Alliteration provided free of charge>

Posted by: milo99

quote:
Originally posted by MacThor
Bill will win, DJT will buy Cigar-of-the-Month, and Bill will be CEO of Trump Fine Cigars!

hmmm... you may be on to something here. I've agreed with you that Bill seems the most likely to win so far, and this would actually make some business sense for Trump.

Posted by: IJustLikeTivo

quote:
Originally posted by mp2526
My point is that they didn't know it was not ok to drink and I'm sure once they found out, they stopped.

Now, on the other hand, they should have realized the liability aspects of having customers ordering lots of booze, I will give you that.

As far as the sexuality stuff, my comments had nothing to do with that.

ON what planet (Pun intended) does it show good judgement to drink on the job? it doesn't matter if they didn't know it was wrong explicitely, the should have KNOWN it was wrong ethically,

Of all the people there, the only once who even tried to do something unique was bill with his incentive program for the wait staff.

As for whether they should have used the day to plan. I imagine the rules prohibited them from doing so and thereby gaining an advantage by having more planning time.

OTOH, the women should have been flat out DQ'd for once again using sex to win. No one is allowed to do that in business and they certainly would not be allowed to as the "president" of one of Trump's companies. They need to learn that lesson now and in an empahtic way!!!!

Posted by: mp2526

quote:
Originally posted by IJustLikeTivo
ON what planet (Pun intended) does it show good judgement to drink on the job? it doesn't matter if they didn't know it was wrong explicitely, the should have KNOWN it was wrong ethically,

I would agree with you in pretty much any other situation. However, in a bar situation, it's a little different. And there is a big difference between having a drink and getting drunk. I do agree, in this situation at Planet Holleywood, they probably shouldn't have had the drink, but in the bar restaurant industry having drinks is not uncommon and not necessarily a given as being prohibited. Again my point is, because it is sometimes accepted, if they weren't told before hand, then it shouldn't be a fireable offense.

Posted by: Kylep

My brother-in-law owns a bar and employees are allowed to drink. He likes nothing more then for a customer to buy him a drink... Thats more profit for him... Also, It's rude to refuse a drink.

Of course everyone is expected to stay reasonably sober so they can function at their jobs... And I have no idea how common it is but it seems to work just fine to me.

Posted by: randyf

quote:
Originally posted by daperlman
Partly their fault and partly having to do with the stupid tasks they are assigned.

Like the 'negotiating' one last week. ANY of us could have done better than them in about 5 seconds with a computer and the Internet... but what killed me is that none of the men or women, tried to secure the prices via telephone... saving the time the actual trips to get the items took.

Not only that, why the H3ll do they have to go in "bunches" ?

Wouldn't it make more sense (after making some calls ) to say YOU go get an ounce of gold... YOU go get your legs waxed.... YOU go get some cigars (hopefully to the guy who owns a cigar store )...

And both teams were morons when it comes to the gold. They should have just gone and bought it and got it out of the way. That's like going into a bank and offering $80.00 for their $100.00 bills :rolleyes:

The O N L Y piece of admirable negotiation was the girl who offered 10% over cost for the Callaway club. THAT was good. Shakin your A$$ for $10.00 off a gold bar was BEGGING.

OTOH, I'm surprised that nobody has gone the extra mile and done something like " Look, buddy ... I'll give you $100.00 under the table... write up the receipt for $300"

The object is to WIN, and this IS business.... you can't tell me The Donald couldn't appreciate a stunt like that :D

Posted by: mp2526

quote:
Originally posted by randyf

The object is to WIN, and this IS business.... you can't tell me The Donald couldn't appreciate a stunt like that :D

But with all the Enron's in the recent past, questionable business practices may not be the best way to get a job right now.