www.MarkTAW.com/reviews/TheApprenticeS2E4-2.html (printable version)
The Apprentice "Lights! Camera! Transaction!"
Choosing & Marketing a Product
The bottom line for all products like this is that they promise to take a mundane, boring task, and make it go away, and the parts they can't make go away, they'll make more exciting. This is the promise of nearly all household products. Think of the Brawny commercial where the woman's arm becomes the Brawny Man's arm and it does the chores for her. Or the Swiffer commercials that show people fascinated with sweeping. The list goes on and on - that thing that cleans the toilet bowl and you throw it away each time, just about every cooking appliance or prepared meal you see advertised, the one where the woman loves a product so much that she dusts another woman's house for fun. They all promise the same thing: I'll make the mundane easy and intersting.
Of course, at the end of the day, none of these products can completely remove a mundane task. You may become accustomed to throwing out your toilet brush every time (I really don't see how this is easier than the squirt bottle & the brush), but you still have to do it, and the truth of the matter is, doing it isn't so bad, it's getting up the motivation to do it in the first place that's hard, and that's precisely the thing each of these ads secretly pinpoints.
"With this product, you will have the motivation to do the things you didn't do before." That's the secret to marketing any sort of time saving device like these products. This is also why the caller who said "I have it, it's wonderful" was so important to selling the product. It's not just a matter of showing what it can do, but proving that someone actually would want to use it. 99.9% of America is sitting at home with a similar product that they don't use, so if you can sell me one I actually will use, I'll be greatful. The other 0.01% has a similar product that they do use, but have come to view it as a chore and time consuming, so they hope this product will bring some of that excitement back in to their life.
The Pam
I can understand that coming on to a losing team, and being given the task of "turning them around or being fired" she was being put in a difficult position, and had a certain right to freak about, but another person would have handled it differently.
She consistently talks about people who have a "business gut" through years of experience, and people who don't. It was Andy last time she was project manager, and it's Stacy R. this time. Interesting that she also picks on the youngest looking people. Her excuse with Andy was that he was just out of college. Her excuse with Stacy R. was that she was a lawyer, and not used to making the final decision and she would rather present a few alternatives, make a suggestion, and let someone else (i.e. her client) choose. "I don't think Stacy has ever had to make a business decision, and back it up, ever in her life."
The problem with assigning the pricing task to Stacy, then, was that she wasn't the right person to think about pricing, and once she saw that Stacy wasn't good for pricing, she should have been flexible enough to move on and figure out the pricing some other way. So rather than Stacy wasting Pamela's time by not making a decision, which is how Pamela crafted the situation to appear, Pamela actually wasted Stacy's time by insisting she do a task that she may not have been cut out for.
Not only that, but Pamela did have a strong feeling on the pricing - that people who are new to business are likely to undercut the value of something by pricing it too low, and won't make enough money because of it. She was therefore using Stacy as either a potential scapegoat, or a sounding board to help her think aloud, which is precisely the thing she got on Stacy's case about: thinking out loud.
She also, as Ivana more or less pointed out, used responsibility, as another word for accountability, which was another word for "I'm covering my ass by giving the responsibility to someone and if they fail, I can point the finger." So while I agree that everyone should be responsible and accountable, it really seemed like she was setting up scapegoats in case they failed, and they sensed that. Ivana certainly did.
In the extended footage, Raj, and all the guys turned against Pamela, and said that she was "Smug, she's joked about Donald Trump being her apprentice. Just irreverent to the highest level that you can possihly imagine. Just doesn't care, she was smiling and smirking as soon as you guys lost, she thinks she's above being kicked out. You have a spider of great cunning and poison in your presence." I had wondered why Stacy R. described her as "irreverent," it didn't seem like quite the right word, but coming out of Raj's mouth, and with a little bit more explanation, it made sense. Stacy was just mimicing Raj when she said it.
I really don't see why Donald thought she was so strong, the one time she was PM, her team lost, but as Maria pointed out in the extended footage, it's what his eyes and ears - Carolyn and George tell him that informs his decision. Perhaps his goal was to test her to see which of two conflicting opinions about her was right. By putting her on the women's team, and making her PM, a lot of pressure was put on her, and it was a very good opportunity to evaluate her.
It should be obvious by now that people are rarely fired for reasons directly related to the task at hand. It's more of an evaluation of your ability to stay task focused and make good decisions. George's statement here about being "ten dollars off or ten million dollars off" is the same as his statement when Elizabeth was project manager. "If I'm building a 500 million dollar building and I'm 10 percent over budget, that's 50 million dollars."
I think George likes Pamela because he's similar to her in personality. Hard nosed, believes in his business skills, but perhaps lacking a little in the human relations area.
In the cab, Pamela said that her team lost becaues of the price Ivana selected (!?), and that this game is more political than business oriented. I think that for her ego, making it a political thing and not a business thing (she wears "business" as a badge of honor), it makes the loss and firing easier to swallow. She also feels that she was the scape goat, and I think that it was probably on her mind because from the first moment, she was concerned with finding a scapegoat, and even talked about how she should've held someone more accountable and "played the game" more rather than being "above board" with everyone.
I caught Pamela on the Today show the next day, and she came off as being very reasonable. She said she called Stacy R. after the show and apologized to her because she didn't know how harsh she was being. In a nutshell, she said she did turn the team around to some extent, and that they felt "like a million bucks" and that they had won after the task was completed. "Nobody likes to be managed" in that way, but it was what needed to be done. She said that the women have a lot of insecurities because of their skillsets, or lack thereof, and that they know that they're outclassed by the men. She said that she sensed that immediately, which is why she went over to the men's team. She also mentioned the infighting and deal making, and how she refused to be a part of that and that she'd rather not be a part of that and lose than be a part of it and win. Also, Katie Couric described her as "Donald's Favorite." Call me crazy, but I think someone may have planted that phrase in her head during the pre-interview.
Personally, I wouldn't want to work with someone like Pamela. I know I have my problems, but to have them pointed out to me in such a crass way, and to have any sign of weakness being thrown back in my face would drive me crazy. I would probably literally strangle her.
Pricing
How funny that I wrote an article on pricingjust a couple of weeks ago. $19.99 vs. $20 or Pricing 202.
My "business gut" tells me that as much as we'd like to believe that there's a magic bullet price, there isn't. It's too much of a gradient for us to really know where to draw the line. The supply/demand curve applies here, and whether your a Classical economist or a Keynsian economist, that equalibrium is hard to find, especially when it's a one shot deal like this.
What I think was odd was Kelly's choice of $71.25. It's my feeling that whether you use round numbers or ragged numbers with lots of decimal places communicates something about the sophistication of your pricing scheme. Mortgages are never 5%, 10%, 15% because they're calculated numbers with lots of variables, or at least the number it's based on (prime +/- x%) is based on a lot of variables. Prices in super markets are bizarre because they represent a fixed percentage markup, and perhaps a discount of that. $12.50 with a 30% markup and 5% advertised discount is $15.44. A boutique shop, on the other hand, would just charge $15.
So when Kelly chose $71.25, I didn't know what his message was. Was it an arbitrary number based on profit margins ($71) or was it a made up number ($0.25). Pamela's price of $27.23, while it was sort of symmetrical, spoke more of a manufactured price, and in a way, I think it's hypnotic, repetitive nature helps to cloud the part of the brain that remembers numbers. (27 + 23 = 50)
Still, I think Pamela's pricing should have taken in to account the products that this thing is supposed to replace. Nobody spends $27 on paper towels and Windex, so when they're considering whether or not to buy this, they're thinking of the relative risk. Are they out a single shopping trip's Windex & paper towels, or are they out six months to a year's worth? As Pamela said, they could be priced at a dollar a bar. If I saw it alone in a store, I may pay as much as $5 a bar, but $30, no matter how many bars I got. I don't even know if the thing does what it promises (makes my life easier & more fun), so I'm not going to spend that much money on it.
Later Stacy R. and Raj got together and commiserated in the fact that their desire to have a lower price point was ignored by the team. I'm not sure just how important price was. I think that a lower price point is a competitive thing while people are comparison shopping, but QVC is set up in such a way that you can't comparison shop. You have 12 minutes to make a decision about something, and that's it. It's an impulse buy, and they use the Law of Scarcity (from Robert Cialdini's Influence) about as much as they possibly can and still sell any products. That is, it forces you to make a quick decision. The belief that you can't get it later (when you have had time to think about it), leads you to buy it now, because that option simply won't be available.
The Players
Jennifer M. steps up again, and proves that she can perform under pressure in any situation - like live, national television. Maria may have public speaking and sales experience, but it really didn't show. Funny how being on a huge show like The Apprentice is OK with her, but appearing on QVC gets her rattled.
Ivana consistently complains about the project manager. During the solo interviews, she almost always has something negative to say about someone, and during the boardroom she can't seem to control herself, and asks to speak out of turn to level an attack at Pamela. Maybe it was a preemptive strike and a "political" decision, but I really think she just can't control herself when she doesn't like someone, which is most of the time.
This is the second time Stacy R. was brought in to the boardroom. Pamela wasn't around for the previous task, but her comments mirrord Jennifer C,'s comments closely. The Donald, again, asked why she was brought in to the boardroom, but he might start listening once the trend starts to reveal itself. Jennifer C. said she was a "thorn in my side" and difficult to manage because of her constant talking and asking for a decision to be made on every little thing. Pamela said almost the exact same thing. "Stacy's in the boardroom because Stacy does not add one ounce of value... She speaks so frequently, that it's actually distracting."
I don't think any of the men stepped foward this time around, but I think it's because they consistently win that we're not shown their difficulties. Without seeing their difficulties, we can't know their triumphs.
I actually thought for once that the guys might lose this task, because they showed the guys arguing over price more than they ever showed the guys arguing before, and we all know that each episode is constructed to make the boardroom have the most impact it can. Conflict is interesting, a smoothly working team is not.
Chris has shown himself to be lowbrow for a second time in a row, and in the extended footage he "dropped the F-bomb," and realizing what he did, glanced nervously at Carolyn. He also didn't "earn the respect of his team as a leader" which was the theme of last week's episode. Kelly walked all over him. The exact opposite of Pamela, he didn't make strong decisions, and, oddly, let the team discuss things too much, which seems more in the province of the women's team.
Not shown in the main footage (it's in the extended footage), Kevin was put in charge of "operations," which seems like a fancy version of "set design." He didn't have any experience in this area, and didn't seem to know what to do, but with the help of the QVC team, managed to pull together a reasonably good kitchen set.
If I was a betting man, my money would be on Jennifer M, with Kelly in second place. While Jennifer M. hasn't been PM yet, her comments are insightful, she has the respect of her team, and she always knows what to say without seeming flustered or emotional. She stays on task without letting emotional issues get in her way. I kind of feel bad that she's consistently on the losing team, but I think she'll be vindicated when her time comes. My guess is that as a PM, she would stay task focused, listen to her team members, though proably not put up with any of their personal issues and come off as being a little hard for it. If her team lost the task, she would have clear reasons why, and clear reasons for bring two people in to the boardroom.
Kelly is a strong leader, but I kind of think he lacks a little confidence. It just seemed to me that when he was given the task, he was speaking a little more to his clipboard than to the team. It seems he's more logistics focused than people focused, and while he's a strong decision maker and team leader, he's not as good of a coach and cheerleader as he could be.
Product Tie Ins
This show has a lot of them. You're gauranteed at least two per episode in the form of the task and the reward. Occasionally, they let a third slip in in the form of the location the task is given in. I must say that Raj's, um, technique when asking out Anna Kournikova was... revealing. Not exactly smooth, not exactly the proper thing to do, he seemed to be having a lot of fun with it, and was just filling in the silences with whatever popped in to his head more than executing a well formed strategy.
This is Sam's commentary on Raj's "performance" here.
Raj, you are my hero. From one guy who rarely had luck with ladies before getting married to another guy who seems to be just as tactless with women, I commend your pursuit of Anna. I too would have attempted a date with this mythic beauty, and I too would have failed the challenge and ended up running around the stadium in my boxers. You are the most colorful character of the show, and even if you do not win the apprenticeship due to your eccentricities, you will always be my favorite. You are like me, I like you, and I therefore like myself.
Scary.
While I'm here under the topic heading "Product Tie Ins" I heard somewhere that The Donald was launching a Donald Trump Frangrance. Do you actually know anyone who wakes up saying "I want to smell like The Donald?"
I also heard a rumor that The George wants to be paid for his appearances (he hasn't been paid for the first two seasons, and going in to the third, he wants to make some money). He said that sine the show is so much work, and so successful, he just wants to get a little piece of the action.
It makes me wonder just how shrewed a business man he is for firstly, agreeing to do this much work for free (perhaps he thought it wouldn't be so much work?), and secondly, not being able to spin this in to a million talk show appearances and product tie ins, speaking engagements, and so on.
Lastly, and wrapping up the rumor mill, Jennifer C. may be fired from her New York real estate gig because of her comments about the "old Jewish women" were so inappropriate.
Next week, Crimes of Fashion, or more of the same. The teams have to design a clothing line and put on a fashion show. Are you beginning to get the feeling that this time around the job will involve product development and sales? Fashion is one of Donald's favorite subjects, and he said, I think during the first season, that he believes modelling is a noble profession. So something tells me he's going to take this task to heart.
Could this be where the men finally slip up? They've shown a consistent lack of decorum around women and sexual issues - Raj with Anna Kournicova, Andy with the girl at the ice cream stand, and Chris telling John to "bend over and tie his shoelaces" in the restaurant. Then again, the women never seem to know when to dress up and when to dress down.
Notes on the Saturday Extended Board Room Version
Watching the recap of the events, the first thing I noticed was that Pamela, from the outset, assumed the worst of everyone who was working for her. She seems to believe everyone is incompetent, or if they're competent, it's in some area other than business. She doesn't respect them, and because of that, they're not going to respect her. Her pricing guess was just that - a guess, and even when people who had years of experience pricing things, or reseached the price of related products on the internet, she discounted them and went with what she wanted.
The first time Pamela was PM, her team lost, and the guy they fired (I forget his name) said that he was under utilized. Trump said he should have stepped up and not waited his turn, and fired him. This time around, Trump said that Jennifer wasn't doing much. Ivana told her that Pamela overburdened some people and under utilized others.
The QVC advice came up this time, and it didn't last time. Pamela said that QVC said that you sell on quality, but not on price. It's a matter of converting people into buyers, and price is the least factor - if they want it, they'll buy it at just about any price point. However, Donald said that QVC said the price was too high. We're never going to know the truth on this, perhaps QVC did say both of these things, perhaps Pamela distorted what they said and emphasized something they downplayed.
She said pricing is an art and not a science, and it's something you need a "business gut" for. These are two tools she used to discount anything someone else told her.
At the end of the day, she set them up to fail. From the outset she made it clear that rather than getting things done, people would be held accountable for tasks. So when Trump or George asked why someone might not have stepped foward to volunteer, the answer is pretty obvious - to step foward means to be held accountable, and be a scapegoat later. Whenever she could, she would undermine the other people's authority on tasks she asked them to do, again, sending the message that they're incompetent (which is something she admits she believed about the women from day 1), and will be called out for their incompetence.
Message Board: http://www.marktaw.com/forum/list.php?f=1
page first created on Friday, October 08, 2004
this site and it's contents copyright Mark Wieczorek