The Game Show Forum > The Big Board
If Password returned,
DrJWJustice:
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 12:41 PM\'] 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....
[/quote]
Dude, I'm not sure where you're reading this into Robert's post. I didn't get that from his message. I'll give it another look, in case I did miss something.
In any event, I'm not sure making a bonus game harder necessarily alienates viewers. Making it impossible certainly would, which is exactly what they did on Caesar's Challenge, and the show floundered as a result. On the other hand, I'd argue that \"Wheel of Fortune\" has made its bonus round harder by making the puzzles more of a challenge (fewer RSTNLE's), and they also raised the stakes significantly. It's doing extremely well in the ratings, as it always has.
This argument has gone to strictly economics. Just as Chris doesn't watch game shows strictly for the prizes awarded, I for one don't watch a show strictly to see if it's economically sound. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here, because I'm not just entirely convinced by this part of the argument.
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
This assumes certain things, such as the top prize being won on a routine basis or an automatic roll-over of the entire top prize. In fact, shows of this type might have a spate of several consecutive or near-consecutive wins, followed by a drought of winners. Take the progressive era of PW+ and SP. In essense, the money was going to be given away one way or another. Win the bonus round on the first play, get $5,000 (old system). Lose the first bonus round but win the second, get $10,000. Whether it's awarded as 2 x $5000 or 1 x $10,000, you're out the same amount of money. Actually, you're out more money in the case of the latter as you have a consoluation prize in the form of $100 for every answer that was given correctly. You could be out as much as $10,900 in the latter scenario as opposed to $10,000 even in the first. Let's say we do $25,000 (since we've been using that number), and add $5,000 for each loss. Lose the first bonus, win the second. That's $30,000. It averages to $15,000 per game, which is less than a single win at the top prize value. My point is that the amount of the raise in the jackpot for a loss changes the dynamics of what you're arguing. I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but I am saying that there's more to this than you've argued.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
You're not the first to make this argument and it's valid, but there are also those who have said the fact that the show has no returning players (save in the tournament), an increase in the number of wins is an acceptable trade-off. Naturally, not all viewers look at game shows under the microscope like we do.
DrJWJustice:
--- Quote ---It's appreciated.
--- End quote ---
You're entirely welcome. :-)
clemon79:
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 23 2003,12:40 PM\']I for one don't watch a show strictly to see if it's economically sound. [/quote]
Then you're ignoring a basic fact of real life, because in the real world, if it's not economically sound, you won't be watching it AT ALL. If you don't think economics weren't part of what killed Povich's Twenty-One, you're just not thinking.
--- Quote ---This assumes certain things, such as the top prize being won on a routine basis or an automatic roll-over of the entire top prize. In fact, shows of this type might have a spate of several consecutive or near-consecutive wins, followed by a drought of winners. Take the progressive era of PW, and SP.
--- End quote ---
No, it doesn't assume that at all. I'll try this one more time, and I've pretty much said my piece on the issue anyhow:
Consider two scenarios:
1) 10K base value, increases 5K each time it's not won.
2) 25K base value, increases 5K each time it's not won.
You're saying that if the game in (2) is hard enough, it will give out less money than (1) because it's not won as often. Let's look at them this way:
1) 5K per attempt GUARANTEED PAYMENT, plus 5K each time bonus is won.
2) 5K per attempt GUARANTEED PAYMENT, plus 20K each time bonus is won.
Let's take a 90 day period, and assume that the endgame is won once every third day in case (1). (This also assumes 1 endgame per day, we're not straddling here):
1) (90 * 5K) + (30 * 5K) = $600,000 = $200,000 per month.
Now, case (2), no ceiling on the jackpot (for simplicity), and we'll say it's won once every 10 days:
2) (90 * 5K) + (9 * 20K) = $630,000 = $210,000 per month.
(It evens out at 12 days for case (2), by the way.)
I'd say every third day is a reasonable assumption for most game shows. That means to afford a 25K seed, progressive jackpot, all other things being equal, your game has to be four times as hard, won on the average once every twelveth day. People aren't gonna go for that. ESPECIALLY if, as you say, there is a rash of winners. You get three winners in a week, you're due for a cold spell of AT LEAST A MONTH before you see another one, if you're not gonna break the bank.
\"But the jackpot will be up toa jillion dollars! It'll be great!\" Yeah, and then you get California Lottery Syndrome, where the viewers no longer care about those $35K and $40K hits, they wanna see someone win the jillion dollars, 'cuz it's been done before. But in order for that to happen, probability-wise, you need a string of crappy wins followed by a huge glut of bad luck. That's just not good TV. Wintuition showed us that.
edholland83:
Wow, I'm really surprised by the gathered interest in this post, this is something that I wasn't expecting, my next question about if Password returned, who would you think should be the host?
Jimmy Owen:
I think Tom Bergeron would be perfect as Password host. Does anyone remember how Ed McMahon handled the job after \"Snap Judgment\" assumed the \"Password\" format?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version