Both groups seem to really lack imagination - it keeps coming down to sex and/or money to get people's attention. Really great marketing actually makes people think in order to keep their attention. A good ad taps into your sense of humor, sense of wonder or even your ego to keep you watching. How often do you remember a commercial or the product being advertised that is only offering a prize or bikini babe? Yeah, you see the dollar sign and/or her boobs, but do you see the product? These folks just want to throw money {or a sexy female} at a problem to fix it - you don't need a college education or even a HS diploma to sink to the lowest common denominator of marketing.
I think I hate all of them, which means they all deserve to work for Trump.
I didn't see either side using a "sexy female" on last night's show. The one who advocated using a supermodel was given the evil eye by Donald in the conferance room even though he was exempt. (I'm refraining from using a name because it could be a spoiler to those who haven't checked into the series yet). I did think the right team won even if they did resort to giving away prizes, but the person in question was out in the street like a carny barker which did smell of snake oil salesmanship. It's not just their leadership qualities in question but their salesmanship and as anyone should know, that includes selling oneself as well as a service or product.
It's amazing to me that these contestants are as inept as they are considering they've been gleaned by a virtually unknown process from thousands of applicants. It leads me to believe there are slim pickens for really business oriented talent out there and it could also mean that not that many good people really want to work for Trump. Maybe it is the hair, after all.
I think you have a good point about the best of the best not wanting to have to prove themselves on a game show with the prize being Trump. It's like my theory about why we have so many jerks running for president - you have to be either an ego maniac or an idiot to want the job, so that's what we get to pick from.
But most of the do want to prove themselves but it was inevitable that one would quit for more than any health reasons. I think they believed that too many aspects of the tasks weren't proving anything. Leadership qualities alone don't hack it, IMHO. There has to be some creative talent involved. Advertising art and techniques is the kind of Madison Ave. claptrap that's used increasingly to bad and good effect in our politics. Trump is managing to show the cut throat aspect of corporate politics and that can be good and bad. His bankruptcy may be a small part of his fortune but it's a cancer that he's got to find a way to cure or the mighty Trump could find himself in the position of Goliath.
I didn't see anything special about either of the Taster's Choice "buzz" events. With a budget of $75,000 each, I expected both teams to come up with something spectacular. In fairness, however, our two-minute television glimpse of the events may not have shown us much of what really occurred.
Why would Magna choose Danny as project manager for a task that required him to come up with a promotional buzz? He was a complete disaster on the Burger King task when he was in charge of the promotional buzz for the featured three-cheese burger. It took him FOREVER to come up with his hokey triple play idea with his street performer -- throw a ball in a hole -- act.
On this task, Team Magna should have KNOWN better than to elect Danny as their PM given his past record on Task 1. Oh well, he had to go sometime . . .
No one shines yet. Of course, we're being exposed to the abrasive loud-mouths who are going to be weeded out. These candidates are the best yet? I don't think so . . .
Exactly what I said -- where's the $75,000? I didn't see it anywhere aside from foolishly wasting it on an event planner and giving away money and prizes. I think there are some underlying rules about who gets chosen for project manager (a rotation clause?) I'm with you, Debra, it's a case of a group of greedy overachievers who may, in fact, be successful in what they are doing now but it's a mystery as to why. There are certainly no Carolyns in the lot, the one person who is able to use her social skills to the best effect, one of the prime characteristics of a good leader, director and manager. Director seems to be synonymous with manager but it's not.
I'm so sad that I keep missing ALL of my favorite shoes. I even made time to watch it last night, but my mom popped over. Thanks for updating me guys!
It's rerun on Saturday night I believe.
Magna is not looking good at all.
This year's contestants are worst than last year.
Lightwizard, yeah I was meaning to ask what what day!!! I knew there were reruns Sat last season, but I didn't know about this one.
Hopefully dear mom doesn't stop by when it comes on. that's what she did last time.
(hehehe, i love when she comes over b/c she brings me goodies, but i am missing my favorite shows since i moved to the same town as the folks)
I know they've been rerunning them on either CNBC or MSNBC (or is it Bravo?), all NBC owned cable channels. Check you local guide and you can go to NBC.com and probably find what channel and when the reruns of the latest episodes are being shown.
I just looked and I don't see any reruns for this or Amazing Race tonight.
pfft.
*sucks thumb*
The shows are going to have to improve quite a bit to hold my interest until the end of the season. Aside from the individuals not showing as much promise as they did in the previous seasons, the conversational bits that we see seem very forced (artificial). The repeats, by the way, are friday and tuesday at 8:00PM on CNBC.
that was last night
hopefully nothing good comes on tuesday night. i need to catch up. i appreciate the info.
The tuesday night repeat will be the same as yeterdays repeat.
The good folks never appear on the radar (IMO) until the real nutjobs get kicked off. Two weeks and we'll start seeing the quality folks.
I originally posted my thoughts after the first episode of A3 on the old link. After 3 episodes, my early prediction for the 2 finalists are Bren (from Book Smarts) and John (from Street Smarts). Bren seems to be the coolest cookie of the whole bunch, although his lack of business experience (he's an assistant district attorney in Memphis) might eventually catch up to him when he becomes PM. John is loud, abrasive and obnoxious but he seems likely to be the dominant one from the high schoolers (and he did win the first task rather convincingly).
It might be premature to judge but all-in-all, this group as a whole strikes me as less dynamic than the 2 casts b4. I think the fatal flaw in this show is coming home to roost -- the undercutting by team members of the PM's authority will sabotage task after task (and, therefore, one PM each week), until what's left is the "fly under the radar" types like Jenn from A2.
Attorneys and other jurists sure seem to get ahead in the political arena and I suspect they have no problem getting ahead in the business arena. The key is that they do have to be convincing before a judge and jury. They are basically salesman selling themselves and their side of the case. Even when they don't fully believe in their side of the case. Selling a product, service or deal which is the core of business is one short step.
John is convincing but goes past assertive into being overtly aggresive. Not Donald's style -- the first two winners are low key but very assertive, using the law of attrition rather neatly and chipping away at a problem until it is solved. Most people would never see it coming until the handshake and they would still be convinced they are dealing with a nice person who has there best interest at hand. The important thing is they are not sharks. I get the impression that John is a shark.
