Martha goes with the pros on her ‘Apprentice’

< Prev | 1 | 2

Most popular

• Most viewed

• Top rated

• Most e-mailed

Obama meets U.S. troops, Afghanistan officials

Check out these ambush makeovers!

First of 5 feet found in Canada is identified

Idea of gas-tax holiday runs into a dead end

Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

Most viewed on msnbc.com

It's hardly a surprise that Martha would pick polished over quirky. Each season of his own "Apprentice," Donald Trump quickly weeded out creative types (witness the mess that was jingle-boy Danny) and focused on accomplished and professional, if sometimes pretty dull, contestants.

Innovation is fine, but Trump has been pretty clear that he's not in the market for an creative machine; he wants someone who'll fit with minimal fuss into middle management. A Company Woman, not an Idea Man.

So why would it be any different with Martha? She's always been clear that she is the brand and the source of inspiration, even if it takes an army of underlings to make that so. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia has never been about cutting edge, it's been about bottom line. Dawna was unquestionably the one to fit into that mold.

Story continues below ↓

All of which begs the question: Are there any more lessons to be derived from either "Apprentice"? The little details and the scenery occasionally change (Trump is heading to the West Coast next season, which if nothing else will force Mark Burnett to cut some new filler video and maybe spruce up the soundtrack with a Beach Boys vibe) but the message has always been unwavering: Bland, upbeat professionalism is the path to success at least in Martha's and Donald's worlds. The weekly tasks change enough to sustain mild interest, but the whole "Apprentice" format has become a brand parade with the same inevitable outcome.

Quibble with that if you like, but what's apparent is that it's not going to change. Trump isn't set to hire avant-garde architects into his ranks, and Martha won't be shopping around for any poets ... or even any off-their-meds ad execs. (Sorry, Jim.) The few creative types that survive the screening process for either show primarily seem to be there for comic effect.

Life inside the box
On the other hand, "The Apprentice" has always been among the more serious-minded of TV's reality offerings, and it comes with a basically decent message. There's no bull testicles to be eaten (though if ratings slip, never say never); no critter-infested islands to survive; no sociopath-filled houses to reside in. They're likely the only reality shows ever to be broadcast on CNBC.

Moreover, the shows give a comparatively even-keeled view of life inside the modern workplace — proof that "leveraging assets" and "thinking outside the box" aren't just beaten-to-death business-school abstractions, they're alive and thriving in the hallways of corporate America.

But after experimenting with the "Apprentice" concept, using Martha Stewart as fodder, Mark Burnett has his work cut out for him if he wants to keep the show fresh. The Martha version was a long trip through the doldrums, and I don't think there were too many tears shed when news came that her "Apprentice" was a one-time gig.

Notably, she filmed the live finale in the studios of her daytime show, a reminder that even she has already moved on to her next big project, hoping to put this whole circus behind her.

In a last live moment of Martha's finale, everyone got a glass of Champagne and the camera caught Charles relievedly slugging it back. After a herky-jerky season like that, maybe we all could use a drink — and we can raise a glass to things getting better when The Donald heads to L.A.

MSNBC.com lifestyle editor Jon Bonné auto-deletes any e-mail message that contains the phrase "core competencies."

< Prev | 1 | 2