Apprentice 5/15 **Spoilers**

[appleye1]

I just can't see how any of the women could end up working for Trump. He should have just fired all of them. Based on their boardroom behavior alone I wouldn't hire any of them.

Though I'd have to say the guys got a gift win tonight. That display looked like absolute crap. My theory is they only had male speaking parts in the animated film so they had to give the win to the guys!

[beeman65]

Blech, I can't see either of the remaining four winning it, but I guess someone has to. No one stood out this year as the "favorite" like Bill or Randall in the past. Well, maybe Brent should be on that list too ;)

[heySkippy]

Wal Mart & Microsoft? Ugh, fire me now please.

[TiVo'Brien]

Trump's 10 second lecture about disloyalty was a spoiler for the rest of the show. Once I saw that, all I had to do was find the disloyal team member and I knew which team would lose. Although, I can't really say the men's display was win worthy. :down: Both teams produced a pile of crap -- but then again they only had, what, 24 hours to work?

[Amnesia]

And what was with the meeting in the watch shop? That had nothing to do with anything (and I hardly think that Trump brand watches are as well respected as The Donald seems to think).

[robbins]

Wal Mart & Microsoft? Ugh, fire me now please.

Both are excellent brands.

[MickeS]

This task was at least a little bit more interesting then the previous two tasks.

The women's display looked much better than the men's, but they lacked focus on selling.

The men's display looked like crap, but they were focused on selling.

Looks like crap + focused on selling = Wal-Mart...

I was not surprised to see them win.

I loved how the women denied their eye-rolling when Tammy(?) called them on it. "We were raising our eyebrows... looking up... but certainly no eye-rolling".

It'll eb interesting to see how they'll work together.

[laststarfighter]

The key to winning tasks is know your judges. The men were smart to include what Walmart execs like to see: dollar signs.

[TiVo'Brien]

And what was with the meeting in the watch shop? That had nothing to do with anything............That's exactly what I was wondering. Trump talks up his watches, but the task is about XBox 360. What the heck are we doing talking about watches? :confused: :confused: :confused:

This show has become one huge infomercial.

[laststarfighter]

"has become"? It's always been a big Trump empire commercial.

Anyway, I just wanted to repost that I totally thought the men lost the task because Lee guaranteed a victory less than 5 mins into the task. You know how those usually go. :rolleyes:

[stark]

I liked Tammy, but she picked the wrong task to be PM on. She's a very organized PM, but this was a sales task. She even admitted in the cab that sales were the strong suits of the other two women.

[forecheck]

My first thought with the displays is the girls was completely over done for their target audience, gamers, who the majority of them are male. I know few guys that care about award shows in general, and even less that are interested in the red carpet "experience" that happens before them.

[etexlady]

The two guys remaining are both slimeballs, IMO. Sean thinks he's a lady's man and Lee is a manipulative "politician". The remaining women whine all the time. I don't care who wins. After the Randal episode last season I wonder why I even watch this farce anymore.

[balboa dave]

That's exactly what I was wondering. Trump talks up his watches, but the task is about XBox 360. What the heck are we doing talking about watches? :confused: :confused: :confused:

This show has become one huge infomercial.
"has become"? It's always been a big Trump empire commercial.

Anyway, I just wanted to repost that I totally thought the men lost the task because Lee guaranteed a victory less than 5 mins into the task. You know how those usually go. :rolleyes:I believe the correct term is an egomercial. :D

[Sir_winealot]

This show has become very uninteresting of late, due to the level of the competitors that remain (although *I* favor the guys).

The womens team are a couple of gossipy little immature whiners. The 2 men...well, my guess is that Lee wins this thing, or he would've been fired already as he hasn't been that great.

[forecheck]

I don't have much faith that things are going to pick up, since NBC has scheduled the finale to air after the rating sweeps are over.

[rseligman]

And what was with the meeting in the watch shop? That had nothing to do with anythingThat's pretty typical this season. He just uses some superlative to describe some Trump brand, and then segues into the unrelated challenge using the same superlative.

"Here we are at the amazing Trump Donut House. And here's a company that's also amazing: John Deere."

[Deekeryu]

I hope for a Sean -Lee finale. Sean is very funny and animated. He should have called Adrien a wanker. Yooo Adrien..you wanker!

Lee is business savvy and knows how to play the game.

I didn't like the disloyalty of Roxanne and Allie. Come on, eye rolling, eye brow raising. Same thing. With Trump's message of disloyalty, he should have double-fired them both.

[MarkofT]

I believe the correct term is an egomercial. :DEgomercial. I like it! :D

I hadn't noticed it before, but in the board room, Tammy was whining like a kid locked out of a candystore. I don't recall her voice being soooooo whiney before.



Wal Mart & Microsoft? Ugh, fire me now please.
Both are excellent brands.Both empires have been built with bad acts.
Microsoft has a history of announcing a product just after a similar product is released, usually with more bells and whistles. Many people will wait for the Microsoft product which never comes or arrives in poor shape and missing half the promised features. That is where the term "vaporware" came from. They have also blatently stolen programs for inclusion in Windows knowing that the company they stole from cannot afford the numbe of lawyers Microsoft can.
Walmart started off good, but once Sam Walton got out of the way, has declined into pure greed. They offer benefits to full time employees and nothing to part time employees. Then they hire as few full time employees as they possibly can. They demand price cuts from the manufacturers and if they do not get the cuts, threaten to drop everything Walmart buys from them. Since Walmart owns >50% of the retail sales in America, you can either do business with them, or never grow beyond a family operation. Those businesses that do go along will usually find themselves in bankruptcy court where Walmart will purchase the assets. Take a look at Rubbermaid for an example.

There have been a few tasks on Apprentice where I would have had to excuse myself due to the reputation of the corporation involved and this one would have been one of them.

[Hansky]

Walmart started off good, but once Sam Walton got out of the way, has declined into pure greed.

Yes, the use of the word "greed" (or "corporate greed") is always used by someone who has a firm grasp of the basic purpose and goals of businesses.

They offer benefits to full time employees and nothing to part time employees. Then they hire as few full time employees as they possibly can.

They hire based on their needs as a company. Imagine that. All this time I thought they were the welfare arm of the overnment.

(more of the same skipped)

Those businesses that do go along will usually find themselves in bankruptcy court where Walmart will purchase the assets. Take a look at Rubbermaid for an example.

Wal-Mart purchased the assets of Rubbermaid? That one slipped way under the radar.

There have been a few tasks on Apprentice where I would have had to excuse myself due to the reputation of the corporation involved and this one would have been one of them.

No doubt Trump (or any leader of any business of an size) would love to have candidates who break out the "greed" joke to start their argument.

[MarkofT]

Yes, the use of the word "greed" (or "corporate greed") is always used by someone who has a firm grasp of the basic purpose and goals of businesses.Well I suppose greed wouldn't be the correct word. Moral Irresponsibility would be better but you would only be able to complain about my spelling instead of laughing at my choice of words.
They hire based on their needs as a company. Imagine that. All this time I thought they were the welfare arm of the overnment.They do not hire based on their need. Walk into any Wal-Mart and you have a 75% chance of seeing it a complete mess. Obviously they need more employees out on the floor and straightening up the messes created by it customers.
And what is this thing about being the welfare arm of the Government? From what I have seen, the Government is the heathcare arm of Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart purchased the assets of Rubbermaid? That one slipped way under the radar.I'm not sure who purchased their assets but Wal-Mart sank them. Not that you can find any witnessess. Everyone seems to be as forgetful as Reagan and Clinton when it comes to Wal-Mart. Just search out any articles on the evilness of Wal-Mart for the confirmed specifics.

And why did you not dispute any of my MS comments? No personal interest there I guess.

[Hansky]

Well I suppose greed wouldn't be the correct word. Moral Irresponsibility would be better but you would only be able to complain about my spelling instead of laughing at my choice of words.

Your argument is essentially the same. The comment about spelling is jibberish.

They do not hire based on their need. Walk into any Wal-Mart and you have a 75% chance of seeing it a complete mess. Obviously they need more employees out on the floor and straightening up the messes created by it customers.

Now you have decided that you know best how to run the stores. They need more full time workers because you think they are too messy. That really boosts the validity your position.


I'm not sure who purchased their assets but Wal-Mart sank them. .

What a surprise that you don't know what you are talking about.

Not that you can find any witnessess. Everyone seems to be as forgetful as Reagan and Clinton when it comes to Wal-Mart. Just search out any articles on the evilness of Wal-Mart for the confirmed specifics.

I'll leave the tired, meaningless rants to people like you and I'll stick to actually understanding how business and the economy works.

And why did you not dispute any of my MS comments? No personal interest there I guess.

Why didn't I post a response in the topic about last weeks Soprano's eisode? Why didn't you respond to my post of last week in another topic? Another genius comeback.

[MickeS]

Well I suppose greed wouldn't be the correct word. Moral Irresponsibility would be better


I'm with you 100%. Every time I argue with someone about companies like Wal-Mart that have as a policy to only to the absolute minimum for their employees, they say "well, they're only in it to make money". That's a depressing view of how a business should be run - business should be in it to make money so that they can help their employees live the best lives possible. Not just to enrich the CEO's and stockholders.


They do not hire based on their need. Walk into any Wal-Mart and you have a 75% chance of seeing it a complete mess. Obviously they need more employees out on the floor and straightening up the messes created by it customers.


They do hire based on their need - they obviously don't need anymore people than they already have, since the only reason people go there are their low prices. Which is why I stopped going there - it's probably the most depressing store on earth. It's the epitome of everything that's bad about America.

But the problem isn't that they hire based on need. It's that they would rather hire 2 part-time employees than one full time, so they can keep advertising benefits for full time employees, but not actually have to go through and offer them.

[MarkofT]

What a surprise that you don't know what you are talking about.Eh, so I have forgotten a few details. It happens. Especially since I'm not a memorizing sort of person. I actually had to learn to think in school. IIRC, the article I read was in a mainstream financial magazine and centered mainly on Vlasic and their 1 gallon jug of dill pickles. That might have even been the title of the piece.


I'll leave the tired, meaningless rants to people like you and I'll stick to actually understanding how business and the economy works.You do that. It seems that you need to study up some more and not just read the shiny happy press releases.

BTW, which Wal-Mart do you work for anyway?

[appleye1]

They offer benefits to full time employees and nothing to part time employees. Then they hire as few full time employees as they possibly can.
No need to single out Wal-Mart for this. This practice is pervasive in the retail industry and has been for years. I worked in retail management for 20 years and every company I worked for, even union shops, had a policy of preferring to hire part-timers and giving them little or no benefits. I worked at drug stores, grocery stores, and large department stores and they all did it. And don't bother to give Sam Walton any props. I never worked for Wal-Mart, but I did work for a competitor while he was alive. It was common knowledge that Wal-Mart followed that practice even then.

[Hansky]

You do that. It seems that you need to study up some more and not just read the shiny happy press releases.

Great "I know you are but what am I" comeback, after your other stock lines failed and it turned out you didn't have a clue.

BTW, which Wal-Mart do you work for anyway?

Wow, you even broke out the "You must work for (insert company name here)" line. How pathetically desperate.

Be sure to get that Apprentice application in soon. You are a business genius!

[newsposter]

And what was with the meeting in the watch shop? That had nothing to do with anything (and I hardly think that Trump brand watches are as well respected as The Donald seems to think).

i was waiting for a challenge of selling DT watches to walmart shoppers


I loved how the women denied their eye-rolling when Tammy(?) called them on it. "We were raising our eyebrows... looking up... but certainly no eye-rolling".

.

then after boardroom "no more eye rolling" which meant she KNEW she did it but lied before...geez um!

I hope for a Sean -Lee finale.

but will he show up if it's a holiday :) Obviously he gained a 2 week skip for his beliefs, totally unfair for this competition

[marksman]

And what was with the meeting in the watch shop? That had nothing to do with anything (and I hardly think that Trump brand watches are as well respected as The Donald seems to think).

Trump is horribly delusional. I am convinced he believes the nonsense he spouts about things like his watches.

As for the contest, I was horrified when I saw the ladies display, because I did not think it fit into a Wal Mart at all. A totally enclosed lounge..... Just seemed like a potentially huge issue.

I think the men's display looked horrible, but at least the shot for something bigger, and just missed. I think if they would have gotten what they needed from the floor/ceiling guy they would have had a pretty professional looking display.

Really though, the Wal-Mart and Microsoft guys should have said, honestly, they both suck and we would not allow either of them in our stores/with our products.

The guys was probably a few hours a way from being spot on, the women had to pretty much start over.

[marksman]

Walmart started off good, but once Sam Walton got out of the way, has declined into pure greed. They demand price cuts from the manufacturers and if they do not get the cuts, threaten to drop everything Walmart buys from them. Since Walmart owns >50% of the retail sales in America,

Wal-Mart's retail market share is nowhere close to 50%. Just running through the top 20 retailers from 2004 their market share of the top 20 was less than 30%. Add in ever other retailer out there and it is a fair bit shy of 50%.

Wal-Mart does do exactly what you say and that is their right. That is the power of having volume. If you can not deliver a product at a price that they want, you do not get in the store. Why? Because they will find someone else who will do it. Not sure why you have a problem with that. If a business builds their entire business solely on their Wal-Mart relationship and does no diversification as they grow, that is their own fault. You know how many little companies hit the lottery when they managed to get a product into Wal-Mart? I hedge to bet they have made many fold more companies than they have broke.

you can either do business with them, or never grow beyond a family operation. Those businesses that do go along will usually find themselves in bankruptcy court where Walmart will purchase the assets. Take a look at Rubbermaid for an example.

That is so absurd to imply that any supplier who plays ball with Wal-Mart goes to bankruptcy court. That is no where close to being accurate. As noted above, they have likely funded and provided the growth impetus for a rididculous number of companies, many more than have been destroyed. I used to be a retail buyer, not for Wal-Mart. I met with vendors all day as my job. I know the impact getting into Wal-Mart had on many small companies, and I do know the problems some companies had when they built their entire business on one customer. That is just bad business management, not Wal-Mart's fault.

You might want to expand your knowledge and understanding on Wal-Mart beyond what you see on biased PBS specials. As for Rubbermaid, they wanted to raise the prices on their product and Wal-Mart said no. I applaud Wal-Mart for that. They would go somewhere else and find a comparable item for a price they thought would be affordable for their customer. If that is somehow a bad thing, color me stupid. If they went around and could not find a replacement product then they might revist a relationship with Rubbermaid, otherwise, forget about it.

As I mentioned, I used to be a retail buyer, and it was in the discount segment. Price was extrmely important. If a company came to me with a price increase, I would look long and hard for a replacement. I would just not say, well we understand that your costs went up. My committment is to my business and our ability to make money, and that includes delivering affordable products to the customers.

[heySkippy]

Both are excellent brands.
Both are big bags of suck brands.

I know lots of people buy Microsoft products, but I don't. I know lots of people love to shop at Wal Mart, but I don't. Lots of people will bury their principles and do anything for a buck or national exposure on a TV game show, but I won't.

If that means I would never make it as The Apprentice, well I already knew that. If I'd have somehow been in that position where I had to promote two of the most evil companies in the whole world, I'd have walked out.

Now, put me on a CSI type show where we figure out how to prosecute Bill Gates for all his varied crimes back in the 80's and early 90's and I'd be all over that. ;)

[MarkofT]

Great "I know you are but what am I" comeback, after your other stock lines failed and it turned out you didn't have a clue.



Wow, you even broke out the "You must work for (insert company name here)" line. How pathetically desperate.

Be sure to get that Apprentice application in soon. You are a business genius!Looks like you do not have any valid replies yourself. You have done nothing but classify my comment into your little pigeon holes and dismissed them.
Perfect for the Apprentice boardroom. Better sharpen your pencils and get to work on that application.

Wal-Mart's retail market share is nowhere close to 50%. Just running through the top 20 retailers from 2004 their market share of the top 20 was less than 30%. Add in ever other retailer out there and it is a fair bit shy of 50%.Not all retailers compete in the same market as Wal-Mart. Just looking at retailers as a whole would include #2 Home Depot which probably shares no more then 25% of items. The other top retailers may not share even that small amount of items with Wal-Mart. You would have to compare Wal-Mart with other department stores/general merchandisers and Wal-Mart with the rather more varied grocery stores to get any meaningful statistics.
Wal-Mart does do exactly what you say and that is their right. That is the power of having volume. If you can not deliver a product at a price that they want, you do not get in the store. Why? Because they will find someone else who will do it. Not sure why you have a problem with that.If that is all they did, I would not have a problem with it. But that isn't all they do.
Young remembers begging Wal-Mart for relief. "They said, 'No way,' " says Young. "We said we'll increase the price"--even $3.49 would have helped tremendously--"and they said, 'If you do that, all the other products of yours we buy, we'll stop buying.' It was a clear threat."
While it might be a bad decision to center your business around one customer, the only other feasible decision is to not do any business with Wal-Mart at all. Why is that the only other decision? Because Wal-Mart is soooo large and orders soooo much at once, you have to ramp up what would amount to an entire second company just to meet their demand. There is no middle ground unless your company is either centered on a market other then Wal-Mart's. And making the decision to skip Wal-Mart entirely will severely cripple your growth.

*FastCompany article (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html)

[Hansky]

Looks like you do not have any valid replies yourself. You have done nothing but classify my comment into your little pigeon holes and dismissed them.

I need only point out the invalidity of your comments. There is no need to go further. Do you actually think anyone needs to argue against your little gem that Wal'Mart needs to hire employees because you think the stores are dirty? Nice joke.

You have shown, and continue to show, that you don't even understand what you say in your own posts. To the extent you need a counter-argument, try basic econ in the local high school or community college.

While it might be a bad decision to center your business around one customer, the only other feasible decision is to not do any business with Wal-Mart at all. Why is that the only other decision? Because Wal-Mart is soooo large and orders soooo much at once, you have to ramp up what would amount to an entire second company just to meet their demand. There is no middle ground unless your company is either centered on a market other then Wal-Mart's. And making the decision to skip Wal-Mart entirely will severely cripple your growth.

Of course, people with an ounce of business sense and common sense would understand that any business is free to choose exactly what they want to do with their business. That small issue is way, way beyond the comprehension of people who paste arguments that don't understand.