The Game Show Forum > The Big Board
If Password returned,
DrJWJustice:
(Uncle) Chris, you make an excellent argument for the business standpoint, but your excellent argument (I mean that as a sincere compliment) left out a few details. First, if you want to spend as little money as possible, in this scenario, you work the game such as to make ANY amount of money not-so-easy to win.
Hypothetically, let's say a revival goes with the PW+ Alphabetics game. I've seen a suggestion in the past to drop the clock to :45 from the :60 used on the last two series of the show. There would be fewer winners, and therefore, less money given away. In such a case, I would suggest raising the money stakes to compensate for the time taken from the clock. For some of us in this group, this would be an improvement. It's kind of like betting on horse races -- when the odds are longer that a horse will win, the payout for betting on him if he does win goes up as a compensation. Taking this from the race track and putting it into a a game show perspective, everytime someone sets foot in front of the Alphabetics board, the show's producers are essentially betting on whether someone can give ten correct answers within the time allotted. This does add a new twist to the argument, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's comments in return. Yes, I would respectfully and with much interest like to hear from Brandon and Chris on this point.
Both PW+ and SP started with $5000 pots, with PW+ moving to a progressive pot toward the end of its run & SP having a progressive pot throughout its run. Putting in the dollar figures, and speaking for me personally, I'd be more on the edge of my seat for a $25,000 base pot (w/ $5000 added per loss) and a :45 clock than for a $10,000 pot (progressive or not progressive, take your choice) and a :60 clock. Not everyone would be on the edge of their seat as I was when watching them back in the day, but there ARE viewers out there who would be. I've sat in enough doctor's offices as a kid watching this stuff on TV in the waiting room to know this. Things might be different in other parts of the country, though, I'll allow. But, the chances are we'd have more successful runs of Alphabetics with the $10,000/:60 set-up, but I'd also bet that less money would be spent overall on prizes with a $25,000/:45 set-up.
I base this theory on the short-lived $50,000 Pyramid, which reduced the Winner's Circle to $5000 per game and the $50,000 round-robin tournament. There was a bigger prize, to be sure, at the top of the pyramid, and I suspect it gave away less prize money in the aggregate because of this format. I also acknowledge that this is widely regarded as the 'failed' version of the show. But, I'll also point to the $100,000 Pyramid, which did not reduce the Winner's Circle for \"regular\" wins and added the grand prize for the Tournament of Champions.
Speaking of which, this brings up another compromise. Do Brandon's $10,000 non-progressive pot for the show and have a tournament at the end of the season for, say $50,000. That, I believe, WOULD go toward making the argument that mo' money makes the show mo' watchable. Some may disagree, and that's fine, but it's a thought, and it's been done successfully before on other programs.
I'll readily admit that this is none of this is a sure deal -- and we'd have no way of knowing unless it was actually tried. We could also do this by going back and watch every single episode of PW+ and SP and note the wins in >:45 versus those that were between :45 and :60 and go from there. I'd do it myself, but I've got a disertation I've got to finish researching and writing. However, it would be fun to do such a project at some point in time in collaboration with others on this group.
Chris, I don't know if there is anything I can say that will sway you in my direction of thought. But, dropping the insults and flames that get us nowhere, I found your challenge worth a try. I hope I made as decent an argument here as you made in your last post.
Comments & replies?
Robert Hutchinson:
--- Quote ---(Uncle) Chris, you make an excellent argument for the business standpoint, but your excellent argument (I mean that as a sincere compliment) left out a few details. First, if you want to spend as little money as possible, in this scenario, you work the game such as to make ANY amount of money not-so-easy to win.
--- End quote ---
Except that the goal is not to spend as little money as possible--the goal is to make the most profit off of your show as possible.
Let me try to make a rough sketch of the Average Osmond Pyramid Viewer (AOPV), in various alternate universes of differing amounts of prize money.
The $8.32 Pyramid: \"CHEAP!!\" AOPVs run away in droves.
The $5,000 Pyramid: \"They used to give away $10K and $25K in the '80s. Kinda cheap of them.\" A significant number of AOPVs tune out.
The $10K-$25K Pyramid: \"Ooh, nice, round, familiar numbers. Wish I had that much money.\"
The $25K-$50K Pyramid: \"Ooh, nice, round numbers. Wish I had that much money.\" (Producers: \"The ratings only ticked up a hundredth of a point? Time to sell more blood.\")
The $500K Pyramid: \"Holy crap, that's cool! Too bad it never made it to air because the sponsors couldn't begin to cover the cost.\"
Contestants want The $500000000000000000000 Pyramid. Producers want The 5 Peso Pyramid. Audiences are what make the prize money what it actually is.
DrJWJustice:
--- Quote ---Except that the goal is not to spend as little money as possible--the goal is to make the most profit off of your show as possible.
--- End quote ---
Chris is arguing strictly the business perspective, and when taking that point of view, the object is to make the greatest amount of money possible. That's done by keeping expenses as low as possible while keeping revenues as high as possible.
--- Quote ---Contestants want The $500000000000000000000 Pyramid. Producers want The 5 Peso Pyramid. Audiences are what make the prize money what it actually is.
--- End quote ---
I think this statement does a better job of looking at the whole picture.
Brandon Brooks:
--- Quote ---Hypothetically, let's say a revival goes with the PW+ Alphabetics game. I've seen a suggestion in the past to drop the clock to :45 from the :60 used on the last two series of the show. There would be fewer winners, and therefore, less money given away. In such a case, I would suggest raising the money stakes to compensate for the time taken from the clock. For some of us in this group, this would be an improvement. It's kind of like betting on horse races -- when the odds are longer that a horse will win, the payout for betting on him if he does win goes up as a compensation. Taking this from the race track and putting it into a a game show perspective, everytime someone sets foot in front of the Alphabetics board, the show's producers are essentially betting on whether someone can give ten correct answers within the time allotted. This does add a new twist to the argument, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's comments in return. Yes, I would respectfully and with much interest like to hear from Brandon and Chris on this point.
--- End quote ---
This example to me isn't mo' money syndrome. I agree $25K and :45 would be a nice trade-off. To me, alphabetics has always been rather easy. Sixty seconds for $25K for that bonus round? Uh-uh. Forty-five seconds for $25K? Better. Wins would be rare enough to be interesting to look at.
--- Quote ---I base this theory on the short-lived $50,000 Pyramid, which reduced the Winner's Circle to $5000 per game and the $50,000 round-robin tournament. There was a bigger prize, to be sure, at the top of the pyramid, and I suspect it gave away less prize money in the aggregate because of this format. I also acknowledge that this is widely regarded as the 'failed' version of the show. But, I'll also point to the $100,000 Pyramid, which did not reduce the Winner's Circle for \"regular\" wins and added the grand prize for the Tournament of Champions.
Speaking of which, this brings up another compromise. Do Brandon's $10,000 non-progressive pot for the show and have a tournament at the end of the season for, say $50,000.
--- End quote ---
That's fine, but I never said I didn't want a progressive pot. I don't think I do want one, but I never said previously that I didn't.
--- Quote ---That, I believe, WOULD go toward making the argument that mo' money makes the show mo' watchable. Some may disagree, and that's fine, but it's a thought, and it's been done successfully before on other programs.
--- End quote ---
It's not a bad thought at all. A tournament of champions is always nice: good gameplay with people you know will get a glut of money. This is fine, but as an ongoing thing, I really don't like. That's why I protested so much against the $25K idea.
--- Quote ---Chris, I don't know if there is anything I can say that will sway you in my direction of thought. But, dropping the insults and flames that get us nowhere, I found your challenge worth a try. I hope I made as decent an argument here as you made in your last post.
--- End quote ---
It's appreciated.
Brandon Brooks
clemon79:
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 02:16 AM\'] The $8.32 Pyramid: "CHEAP!!" AOPVs run away in droves.
The $5,000 Pyramid: "They used to give away $10K and $25K in the '80s. Kinda cheap of them." A significant number of AOPVs tune out.
The $10K-$25K Pyramid: "Ooh, nice, round, familiar numbers. Wish I had that much money."
The $25K-$50K Pyramid: "Ooh, nice, round numbers. Wish I had that much money." (Producers: "The ratings only ticked up a hundredth of a point? Time to sell more blood.")
The $500K Pyramid: "Holy crap, that's cool! Too bad it never made it to air because the sponsors couldn't begin to cover the cost."
[/quote]
Robert makes EXACTLY the point I was going to respond to JW with: you make the bonus game harder to win, you are going to alienate potential viewers, which means lower ratings, which means less revenue, which means you need to cut your prize budget for next season (if there is one), which means A) the bonus has to get even HARDER or B) the prize has to lower. Either way, it means lower ratings....
To maximize profits, you have to maximize the simple ratio of (Ad Revenue) / (Prize Budget). Which means you have to find a number for that prize budget, along with a frequency of payout, that gets the most people to watch, because the number of viewers DIRECTLY drives Ad Revenue.
For the sake of argument, let's say that my 10K payout for a :60 Alphabetics and JW's 25K payout for a :45 Alphabetics end up working out to an identical total prize budget. (Because a :45 Alphabetics is harder to win, it wouldn't pay out as often.) You have to ask yourself if the extra viewers you turn on with your Big Money Jackpot is going to make up for the viewers you lose because you can only afford to pay out on it once every two weeks. I'm suggesting it doesn't.
--- Quote ---But, the chances are we'd have more successful runs of Alphabetics with the $10,000/:60 set-up, but I'd also bet that less money would be spent overall on prizes with a $25,000/:45 set-up.
--- End quote ---
The only way this can happen, using your proposed progressive system, is when the 25K pot hits whatever ceiling you assign to it and nothing more is added to it for a while. Consider: 5K is paid out each time you both play, no matter what ('cuz that's the increment, it will be paid EVENTUALLY), and your seed value (which kicks in when someone wins) is two and a half times bigger than Brandon's, which means you has to go all the way to 50K (or whatever, God help you if it's more) without a winner that much more often to keep the two budgets close. Granted, it only takes you six plays (or more) to get there, but the point is that means that you can pay out on it even less often than you think, or you have to pull in that many MORE viewers to alleviate the added expense. By and large, a game show that can only afford to pay out their grand prize at MOST once a week isn't gonna be on very long.)
Also, to supplement Robert's point about setting the prize too low...frequency of payout works into this too. If the jackpot were $5K in 90 seconds, you'd turn viewers off as well. In fact, this seems to be one of the the big knocks on the new Pyramid, that the jackpot is given away too often. Certainly it's a big part of why I don't watch it.
--- Quote ---But, I'll also point to the $100,000 Pyramid, which did not reduce the Winner's Circle for \"regular\" wins and added the grand prize for the Tournament of Champions.
--- End quote ---
Noted. But also note that a) during tournament weeks, there were no 7-11 or Mystery 7 prizes available, much less given away, and b) the Winner's Circle had freakin' impossible categories like \"Things That Are Etruscan\", which meant the Big Fella (if I may Cosby momentarily) wasn't gonna be given away without a fight. So if you figure the prize budget for the regular show was 50K a week in the WC and another $15 in bonus prizes (remember, they frequently gave away cars for the Mystery 7), then assuming the Tournament lasted a week (and that seems to me to be about right), then the prize budget that week only jumped about 35K. Now spread that over a six-week tournament cycle (I think I remember Dick mentioning that was roughly the frequency) and you're looking at a modest kick of 5K a week in prize budget - more than reasonable for a nighttime syndication of a daytime show. Hell, Match Game PM had that ten or twelve years before.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version