"None of the other winners were put in that position. So he's selfish; that's OK. Trump is selfish, too. Maybe that's what Donald wanted him to say, because he would have done the same thing."Well, no, it's not what Donald wanted. But don't worry about Rebecca Jarvis. It can be better to be the runner-up. Ask Clay Aiken. And Aiken had to go into the "American Idol" starmaking machine even though he lost. Rebecca is free to collect job offers and to work on whatever terms and with whatever company she wants. And she's got a lot of leverage right now, more than she would have within the Trump Organization.
Motley Fool analyzes Trump's decision not to hire Rebecca and makes a general observation about investment:
The audience... hated the decision. Booing was audible as Randal turned to acknowledge them. I agree, and not just because Randal backstabbed a colleague he said he respected. More importantly, I believe, Trump turned away serious talent that wanted badly to work for him. Sadly, though, such decisions are hardly uncommon. Investors do the same thing every single day.But Trump's main concern isn't getting good people into his business through the show. It's doing a great show and using the show to boost his business. Offering the first position to Randal made sense for a number of reasons -- it was time we saw a black contestant win -- and putting the issue of a double hire to him was good TV. Having done that, Trump couldn't reject the advice of the man he'd just chosen. And this show isn't about making us feel warm and fuzzy. It's about brutally cutting people off. Yeah, one person does win (and then slide down a rathole into obscurity... unless his name is Bill). But the tagline of the show is "You're fired."
Allow me to explain. When given a choice between several comparable and undervalued stocks, investors will inevitably opt for the one they believe is the best, even if the evidence suggests all of them could be major winners. It's easy to understand why. In our newsletters, our analysts confine themselves to no more than two picks each month.
That is not, however, how the best money managers treat their portfolios. They understand that it's fine to own or buy both Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Dell (Nasdaq: DELL), or any other host of good opportunities at a single point in time -- not just a choice pick or two.
That's where Trump went wrong last night. His either/or choice was arbitrary and unnecessary, and he hurt his organization as a result. Don't let that same mistake plague your portfolio.
We love the show even as we see our favorites slammed down week after week, year after year. This weird ending got us all talking about the show again and created momentum for the next season. We're newly inspired with the feeling that wild things happen and beloved favorites can crash and burn at any moment. That's what's so fun, we think, we viewers at home who are vicariously living life in the cutthroat business world.
पोस्ट्स
१२ टिप्पण्या:
My problem is that Trump is the boss and shouldn't have let the new guy make the decision. Get input from him, absolutely - good theater, magnanimous gesture, etc. But let him actually make the decision, appallingly bad.
He could have said it better, like flattering Trump for his excellent judgment: Mr. Trump, I have seen you make decisions throughout this competition, and I have developed so much respect for you. I'm deeply honored that you chose me, because I do respect your judgment so much. So, I've got to think this is the right decision too, and I thank you. And I know the brilliant and beautiful Rebecca will go on to do great things. I hope we get to do business with her some day!
Ann,
If the intrigue, backstabbing and audience-pandering of this show is its best feature, aren't we better off with a standard soap-opera? Oh, ok, a good novel perhaps.
This is just my opinion (and here, it seems, I'm in the miniscule minority), but Trump, his show and his machinations just aren't worth the pixels you spend on him.
Joe
"Offering the first position to Randal made sense for a number of reasons -- it was time we saw a black contestant win..."
This comment of Ann's tends to reinforce the gut feeling I had that Randal was at least partly an affirmative action hire.
I wish we could get to the point where people truly are selected for being the best and not because they have the right skin color. I picture the Apprentice producers looking really, really hard for a black person they could see getting hired at the end just because "it was time we saw a black contestant win." Bleh.
The decision to share (sorry "Chris"...like that's your real name) wasn't racist at all.
And I should know cause I am a racist.
Chris- You'd have to be Irish with a Mom as ugly as yours.
Your tactics may work in Scrabble but we all know you're making up words now. Your argument is collapsing like Ashlee Simpson.
Why does everyone keep saying Rebecca didn't make a dime? The approach she used, which the client demanded, was to include envelopes for donations in the bags given to the guests. Did not one guest send in a donation? Randal's event in the locker room was a horror. Did we ever hear from his client how they liked what he did? No, it was all boiled down to the dollar amount, which I think was unfairly calculated to exclude the money that came in later.
And the contestants were NEVER told that the task was to be judged by the dollar amount alone. In the past, some tasks have been judged that way, and where contestants knew that, they often did stupid things just to get to the number that would win. Other tasks have been judged by the quality of the presentation, and where that was the standard, contestants went about it differently.
If the quality standard is applied to the final task, Rebecca is far and away the winner. The show chose after the fact to frame the contest in terms of the bottom line and also excluded any fundraising that came after the event, knowing that only Rebecca had structured her event so that the money came in later.
Thus, it was a total set-up to make Randal the winner. Rebecca was gracious about that. Randal chose to act as if he had simply won and deserved what he got.
Randal saved Trump from Trump. What an anti-climactic piece of crap that finale would have been had Rebecca been hired.
And it makes no sense to hire Rebecca because "she is a star too" when Alla was a much bigger "star" than her.
I watched Survivor, and I know Rupert, and Rebecca is no Rupert.
"People, get over it, as a white girl, white corporate america will circle the wagons around her and she will get more money, more fame and more success than Randal, who still will have to work for everything he gets."
Lol! I always think people are doing parody when they write stuff like that- it is so much funnier when I realize they aren't!!!
h6: "I just watched Larry King Live where Donald Trump said all his killer business buddies said that Randal made the 100% RIGHT decision. So obviously, the real successful people in business - and DT would certainly know all of them - feel that Randal's first step was dead on. If that's not a vote of confidence, I don't know what is."
Because Trump would never lie or fluff to protect his business interests.
I'm pretty sure Trump wouldn't feel it was necessary to lie about Randal's choice. It isn't like he's hustling for quarters. And if you re-Tivo that scene you'll see Trump was not upset by Randal's decision, but bemused and respectful of it.
I imagine Trump's business partners are a lot like Alla, personality wise.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा