In that case you’d also have to include any money that people sent in after Randal’s event because they had their awareness raised about autism or read some distributed literature.
I think that if it wasn’t raised at the event, it doesn’t count. Rebecca was wrong to cave into Yahoo like that. She sold out her charity to suck up to a corporation.
Speaking of Yahoo! - did they ever explain why they didn’t want any mention of the charity at the charity event? (I started fast forwarding. The show just would not end. Again, they really, really, really need to fix the finale). The Yahoo! executives looked horrible during the time I was watching.
And I’m on the Randal looked classless, petty, and graceless. Even if he didn’t think she should have been hired, there must have been some better way of saying it. That was a truly jerkish moment. (Of course, it was fun watching Felicia and Alla in the background shaking their heads “NO” in the most over the top way possible)
They didn’t forbid mentioning the charity; they just didn’t want people going around tables asking for money. They probably thought it would be tacky to invite a bunch of people to a charity event and then ask them for donations, since accepting the invitation in the first place should signal an intent to donate. They didn’t count on Rebecca overemphasizing Yahoo and underemphasizing the charity to the point that it was hard to see it was a charity event at all.
If Trump wanted to hire them both then he should have flouted the rules (as he did with multiple firings) and hired them both of his own accord. No one knows what goes on under those 4 overgrown hairs of his-there’s an equal chance that had Randal said “yes” he would have been too “nice” for the Trump Organization and the job would have then been given to Rebecca. It seems from the toad-like look of surprise on his face that he was surprised at Randal’s decision and probably wouldn’t have done that-but coming from Randal’s POV, the chance existed and he quashed it.
I totally agree with your post, O Great Cynic, but I’m going to add onto it. Randal had made a huge point of Rebecca’s youth and inexperience. It would have been wrong of him to then turn around and advice Trump to hire this young, inexperienced thing.
And did you see her face when Alla was dissing her? Priceless!!! (Daggers shooting out of her eyes right into Alla. I loved it!)
It’s certainly okay to blame Donald for asking THE QUESTION[sup]®[/sup]. But once asked, Randall was a Genghian cad for answering no. “It is not enough that I succeed; other men must fail.” It was a prime example of one aw-shit wiping out a hundred atta-boys. In one of the most remarkable emotional shifts of my long life, I fell from absolutely joyous on his behalf to having zero respect for him in one instant. Feh.
Why did he ask Randall that question? If Trump was impressed with Rebecca, why not hire her as Randall’s assistant, while still giving major props to the real winner? As the boss, that should have been his decision to make, not Randall’s.
I missed the show (damn King Kong) but I’m assuming Randall’s response was snarky. Well, I’m sorry but I probably would have been that way too. Doesn’t excuse him, but still. You just found out you won a chance of a lifetime, getting it fair and square, and you’re expected to share the prize? If I were Randall, I’d feel a bit peeved, like perhaps Trump didn’t feel he was completely deserving of the title.
Maybe Randall also thought Rebecca was unqualified. If he had said as much to Trump, I don’t think that would have made him come across any better.
Did Rebecca lose by only a few points? Perhaps if Randall’s victory was a close one, I’d feel differently about him rejecting Rebecca.
Although, had Randal said something along the lines of “Mr. Trump, I’d love to have Rebecca on board my project as a manager” or “I’d love to have her as part of my team” it would have been a far classier way of handling the situation-yes, keep her, but make sure everyone knows that she’s subordinate to me. Giving her the Jersey project would have been totally unfair and contrary to the point of the show.
But I seriously can’t blame him…the show was 2 minutes away from finishing and Trump is a loose cannon when it comes to deciding between what he likes better-loyalty or ruthlessness.
What if he really felt like hiring her would be bad for the company? I would argue that putting an inexperienced, 23 year-old terminal failure into an executive position would be an insult to the other employees, especially anyone who would be forced to work under her. Hiring executives is not about being gracious. She wasn’t qualified. I would hire Alla before I’d hire Rebecca.
Word.
I guess it depends on how you measure success, but when it came to the primary goal- raising money for charity- Randal killed her. he raised $11,000 with his event and Rebecca raised $0. That’s right. Rebecca didn’t raise a single cent.
If you measure success by how well the events were run otherwise, it was pretty much a wash. Rebecca’s comedy show went fine. Randal’s softball game got rained out so he had to quickly organize a “plan B” (which took the form of a celebrity auction) and his charity came away happy with him.
I would also argue that she made Yahoo look like the biggest scrooges by caving in to the icy bitches that insisted she not directly solicit. I have no idea why they would want to hire her-yes she’s a good event planner in terms of aesthetics and coordination but she proved that she has no idea how to handle conflicting client demands. What on earth is going to happen if she’s working for them and a moneyed client insist she do something that conflicts with Yahoo’s interests? That’s her age and lack of experience showing right there.
Rebecca’s team did a good job of putting on an event…for Yahoo!. It came across as more of a company party than a charity benefit. In terms of raising money or awareness for the charity, they did neither. They spent most of their energy on providing good entertainment for Yahoo! CEOs, and did little to raise funds or awareness for their foundation.
Admittedly, some of it wasn’t her fault (Yahoo! told them not to overtly solicit guests for donations). But she still didn’t seem to realize what the purpose of a charity benefit is. It also makes me wonder what she thought they’d be judged by at the end. Isn’t it usually money?
What conflicting demands? Yahoo demanded that they not ask for money at the Yahoo event. Seemed like it was their call to me.
And am I crazy, or does $11,000 sound like a whole lot of nothing for a celebrity event. Someone paid almost twice their grand total just to appear in an internet comic.
It was a charity benefit-not a Yahoo party. People who attend charity benefits that are sponsored by corporations expect to be solicited and the corporation expects to look big-hearted and good at the end. Those Yahoo execs were nutjobs-at the least Rebecca should have looked into getting money out of someone ahead of time to announce AT the charity event if they didn’t want direct solicitation. I heard Yahoo donated money of their own accord. Want to know why? Because they looked like the biggest meanies last night and that’s due to Rebecca’s ass caving in.
It was not Yahoo’s call. They could ask but they were not in charge of the event. Rebecca’s team was specifically called out on that by Trump and the viceroys in the boardroom. George said something like “Who was running this event, you or Yahoo?” They made it pretty clear that it was HER call to make, not Yahoo’s, that the charity was the client that mattered, and that Rebecca made the wrong decision by caving to Yahoo.
I knew George would pick up on it. “Who is your client” is the first question of Professional Responsibility classes after all. I was so happy when he brought it up.
Last night also proved to me that Trump really is quite astute and he is where he is now because of his understanding of human nature (leaving aside the fact that he was a rich boy).
Option 1: hire Rebecca because she’s like mini-Melania with brains and gives Trump a boner. Instant controversy because Randal had a better record, everyone liked him and brings up the racial issue. Trump is the loser.
Option 2: hire both. Again, the same.
Option 3: give Randal the option. Evil genius! If Randal says yes, Trump looks like a great and maganimous guy and bonus ratings because of the “twist!” if Randal says no, he gets the majority of the blame and Trump gets a little negative reaction from “shouldn’t have asked, anyway.”
Who is the most ruthless of them all? Well-played, Toad, well-played. Also loved the shaming of Yahoo into donation. When all is said and done, I really do watch the show for Trump, not the contestants (quite unlike Project Runway).
In which case, he should have said so – diplomatically, of course.
As I pointed out though, that’s not the reason he gave. Rather, he insisted that there should only be one apprentice. Talk about petty.
Here’s a clue, Randal. “The Apprentice” is just the name of the show. It’s not law, it’s not a social contract, and it’s not a command handed down by the Almighty. And even if it were, who said that Rebecca would necessarily be hired in some Apprentice-level capacity? Donald sure didn’t.
He wasn’t asked to share the prize. Nobody said anything about a paycut for Randal, or about sharing an office, or anything else that would suggest divying u the spoils.
Rather, he was asked if a prize (not necessarily the same one!) should also be extended to Rebecca. Randal’s response amounted to saying, “No, I want to be the only one who gets anything.”
Petty jerk.