5/8 Show Discussion Thread *Spoilers*

[Fortunato]

Originally Posted by Bearcata

I didn't like Michael's answer in the boardroom either. He basically said that he would check out the cheerleader's concerns and get back to her, but he basically said that he lied about checking into the fairness of sharing the cheerleaders with the other team to her to reasure her, to perserve goodwill and that he actually had no intention of doing so.

We didn't see the entire unedited interview and footage, so we only know what the editors showed us. I suspect Michael elaborated on his reasoning much more than we saw -- I mean, come on, the guy never shuts up, you know?

Personally, I think Michael's logic in the BR does align with his past behavior and his personality, so it's not unreasonable to assume he was telling the truth rather than that he was JUST covering his *ss.

However, I also think he was weak, and part of his behavior DID come from his unwillingness to just put his foot down and say "No."

It was really both of those things. Trump didn't like his thinking, nor his softness.

[Google]

 

[Fortunato]

Originally Posted by Anemic Dog

...he handled the cheerleader situation well, and the stated reason for his firing was simply quippy and made for television.

1) The head cheerleader brought up fairness. She bonded with Allie, and, while not wanting to go against her word, was looking for Michael to be a hardass in order to justify breaking her word. You do business with people you like. ...

I agree with this, I offered a similar explanation for Michael's reasoning earlier. There was definitely a chance to blow the whole deal, if they were hard-*ssed about things.

You know, if the coach would have responded to Lee's decision by saying, "Screw you, then, we're giving the squad to Synergy because we don't like you much," Trump would have torn HIM up in the boardroom for being too hard-nosed and insensitive, and Michael would likely have been the hero.

Your #2 point was ingenuous. I never thought of it, but I can definitely see how the dynamic would work. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Fortunato]

Originally Posted by Krom

Are we even watching the same show?

Probably not, Krom. (laugh)

I've noticed that you and I rarely perceive things about the show the same way -- which is fine, since you make me think about things I might miss...

Maybe my memory is shoddy, but I distinctly recall Lee raising objections earlier during the original planning meeting, and Leslie shot him down.

Then he returned to her on (I think) two other occassions during the day of the task, to reassert his view -- which is why she was annoyed by him, since she had already rebuffed his challenge before the task and he wasn't dropping matters.

I think your assessment about Lee and the "Big Sale" isn't unreasonable, but there's so much crap we never see on air that I can't determine what's actually true.

For example, last season when Piscopo cancelled on Rebecca, she was forbidden to call his union to negotiate a deal -- which would have been the most obvious (and "fair") response with the most favorable outcome for her. That was stuff we never knew about, and it judged how we evaluated her character and performance. And that's just one of the "unseen limitations" controlling the team's decisions.

So who knows what stipulations were on the teams for this 7-11 task? Who knows how many sandwiches they had for sale? Maybe 1000 was beyond what they had, and maybe not -- how can you say that with certainty? What do you know that we don't? Do you have sources?

If so, I'd love to see them so I can see it your way.

[PhoneGrrrl]

Originally Posted by Crede

Lee did blow it this task, and the reason was simple. Like George said, they went in overconfident. They thought it was a male task, and so naturally males would win.

They clearly didn't know their Apprentice history. EVERY all-guy team who has said that they're going to win because the task was a stereotypical "guy" thing has lost. As soon as the guys said they had the advantage because they were guys and it was a sporting event, I knew it was over for them, despite the bumps in the road/poor planning of the women.

I thought Allie's attempt at bonding with the cheerleader coach was cringeworthy. And Michael is just so terribly vacant, he needed to go. That being said, I can't STAND Lee and wanted to see him fired. If he wanted Michael to sell more during the event, why not take 5 seconds to get him off the mic and tell him to sell the food? That's just bad management. Michael may have thought he was just supposed to MC and the other 2 would handle the selling of food. That would be kind of a dumb plan on a 3 man team, but so is giving away $500 in cash when you loose by only twice that amount.

[SavhLaney]

I liked that Allie used her background as a cheerleader to make a connection with the coach. And the fans in the tailgate lot loved that she learned the Rutgers cheer.

Why is everyone always critical of the cute, blonde cheerleader?

[Crede]

Originally Posted by Anemic Dog

1) The head cheerleader brought up fairness. She bonded with Allie, and, while not wanting to go against her word, was looking for Michael to be a hardass in order to justify breaking her word. You do business with people you like. At that moment, it was important for the head cheerleader to like Michael. He could easily have walked away from that meeting with only half of the cheerleaders if he had been a jerk, as Lee suggested.

2) You should never pass up an opportunity to set the playing field if you have a competitive advantage. The head cheerleader suggested sending one or two cheerleaders to Allie's team. What a great idea! By agreeing to that, you've set up a competition where you have 28 of the agreed-upon commodity, and your opponent has only two. You've defined the competition. But by shutting them out of the cheerleaders, Lee essentially forced Allie to come up with a new plan.

You should never do that in business. If you know what your opponent is doing, and you feel you have a competitive advantage, you should do everything in your power to keep your opponent on that track. It's the unknown that beats you in business. Lee knew he had a better event planned. What he didn't know is why he lost. You can recover from a mistake if you control the playing field. Lee gave up his control of the playing field, and Trump and company were too narrow-minded and quippy to see it.

Anemic Dog, I thought that was a very interesting couple of points you made.

On point 1, if Michael came of as a hard liner, it might have put the cheerleaders off and endangered the deal, especially because Gold Rush had not offered anything to secure the exclusivity. In this situation the smartest thing to do was to be nice and then play good cop bad cop - let the PM say no later. The cheerleaders would have thought, "at least Gold Rush tried and was open-minded."

On point 2, this is very intriguing. Very good point.

I also have a thought about the way Lee conceptualized his team's plan: he lost sight of the big picture here - such an academically accomplished guy, but he forgot that, as Carolyn said so simply, it was a SALES task. It wasn't a creative task or an events task. He overthought got lost amidst the trees in the proverbial forest. He was concentrating on each event, without thought about how each would help with the ultimate goal, that is, selling. For instance, the eating contest was a stupid idea because you are giving away free food to fill your potential customers up before asking them to buy the food they just had for free. How much stupider can you get (sorry to put it so bluntly). Granted, it wasn't Lee's idea but Michael's, and I don't know why Lee went along with it so willingly but to note that at that point the boys were pretty revved up.

It can be so hard to say no to a team member when that person is so enthusiastic about the idea he is proposing, and so are others. What to do in this situation without seeming like a bastard?

And also, having 30 cheerleaders was great, but just to cheer for Rutgers? What's the point other than to create a spectacle and provide free advertising for Rutger's next game? The problem was that there was insufficient people doing the selling; that's why Lee said he couldn't take the money fast enough. I thought the main advantage of hiring good looking people on a sales task was to have them sell. If some of these cheerleaders could have been assigned a selling task, perhaps for some remuneration, like money or free advertising for their next game or someting, that would have made a bigger difference. Alternatively, it would have been helpful even to have them cheer some jingle specifically to induce customers to buy.

[Crede]

Originally Posted by PhoneGrrrl

That being said, I can't STAND Lee and wanted to see him fired. If he wanted Michael to sell more during the event, why not take 5 seconds to get him off the mic and tell him to sell the food? That's just bad management. Michael may have thought he was just supposed to MC and the other 2 would handle the selling of food. That would be kind of a dumb plan on a 3 man team, but so is giving away $500 in cash when you loose by only twice that amount.

Yes, I agree with you that Lee screwed up on many points here. What the heck happened to him, fear of success?

I think he did yell over to Michael to tell him to sell, at least on the one time it was shown, anyway, but he should have been more agresssive. But conceivably he couldn't because by that time his hands were tied with selling and taking in money.

Also by that time, Michael was deaf with the sound of his own voice and with the whole testosterone steak eatiing frenzy before him. It was outa control by then, except Lee didn't know by how much. He should have had more people involved solely with selling.

Giving away $500 and as much free food as possible when were supposed to SELL food was just plain stupid. How else can I put it? I can only guess they were so sure they were going to win they could afford this kind of overhead.

[NewFORTFan]

The first thing that I thought when the task was assigned was extra workers. But with 30 cheerleaders RIGHT IN YOUR FACE, I believe they didn't have the right to have anyone help them sell, just as part of the event. Michael could in no way pick up $1000 by himself to make up the difference, I think we all know the reason why the task was lost was Lee. My stand on Michael's 'fairness' move is that I never doubted him for a second. He's the kind of person who would think in such a way.

The editing really hid a lot of the great things Synergy did to win, they were definitively focused on 'sell sell sell'. Props have to be given to Roxanne, I won't feel too bad seeing her as a potential F2. One thing that wasn't explained was the impact of the fliers and the previous day leading up to the event. Gold Rush clearly won there, but did it make a difference? Frankly if I'm a drunk college student I'd shout 'BLUE BLUE' non-stop but as soon as I pass by a Yellow tent and I'm hungry, I stop there. I believe there was no loyalty, but maybe it could of had a small impact.

I would of given coupons on the flyers. And just redo the whole pricepoint, events(this ain't a party, it's a place to order food). The money pit gave away money? Someone shoot the guy who came up with it. MONEY PIT. I thought you'd pay $5 and the average payout would be $2, good scheme, not a free chance to get $500. Stupid idea, what a money pit.. The eating contest wasn't that bad, you didn't have more than 10 people part of it, yeah it really filled their belly and kept them from ordering But it shouldn't of been an event.

This task was so straight-forward, there didn't seem like a lot of room for creativity, the winning team was the one that kept it the simplest. BIG props for Roxanne. Roxanne > Lee big time, case point how they each managed their event.

[NewFORTFan]

Originally Posted by SavhLaney

Why is everyone always critical of the cute, blonde cheerleader?

Becauss she's always critical of everyone else.

[NewFORTFan]

Originally Posted by Anemic Dog

2) You should never pass up an opportunity to set the playing field if you have a competitive advantage. The head cheerleader suggested sending one or two cheerleaders to Allie's team. What a great idea! By agreeing to that, you've set up a competition where you have 28 of the agreed-upon commodity, and your opponent has only two. You've defined the competition. But by shutting them out of the cheerleaders, Lee essentially forced Allie to come up with a new plan.

That's really Sun Tzu there huh? Know your enemy and you will win every time. I guess I should whip out the old asian strategy books and read them for deeper meaning again.