The Game Show Forum > The Big Board
If Password returned,
DrJWJustice:
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 04:33 PM\']
[/quote]
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
You and I are simply not going to agree.
Let me put my chips on the table, or better yet, throw them in the air for all to see. Twenty-One didn't last long because it sucked. People didn't watch it as a result. Advertizers don't want their spots they pay out the wazoo to buy airing during such shows because if they do, it's the virtual equivalent of taking money and throwing it out the window for the winds to scatter. I understand this part of your argument perfectly.
--- Quote ---No, it doesn't assume that at all
--- End quote ---
I totally disagree. Don't forget that I'm an academic, trained (among other things) to examine an argument from every possible perspective. That means that I sometimes find in an argument a thread of logic or illogic that the original author of a piece of research may not have realized was in his or her work. I'm sure that you were not consciously thinking about the assumption that I found when you wrote your response. Nevertheless, I see it there. Obviously you disagree, but I feel I can make a case for my point that you do have that assumption present.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
If $10,000 is going to break a TV show in a 90 day period, then that show probably shouldn't have made it past the network bosses in the first place! We haven't even discusses salaries for the cast & crew, and I really don't want to go there. I'll make my point simply then: there's more to it than you're making this out to be! As I wrote last night, every game show is essentially the producers gambling that someone won't win. If they do, they have to pay out. A gamble involves risk. This is a risk that can be minimized somewhat, and producers are right to do so, but there are an awful lot of variable to take into account, not all of which can be controlled.
I'm not going to touch the CA Lottery Show. Texas doesn't have a show along those lines, so I'm not going to speak to that point. The 'Wintuition' example, I think, better fits the 'near-impossible-to-win' model we discussed earlier in this thread. Even a trivia buff like Catherine Rahm (of Winning Lines fame) couldn't win the $50,000. I'd love to have seen what John Carpenter would have done, but we'll never know.
Chris, the bottom line is that you're not going to concede to me, and I'm not going to concede to you. As a mutual friend of ours said in an IM to me, netiher one of us is wrong. We have different perspectives on this, and that's cool. Thanks for the debate on this, but I'm ready to move on to something else.
G'night, kiddos.
clemon79:
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 08:58 PM\'] You and I are simply not going to agree. [/quote]
Yes. If we can't agree on this basic point, the rest of the discussion is moot.
--- Quote ---If $10,000 is going to break a TV show in a 90 day period, then that show probably shouldn't have made it past the network bosses in the first place!
--- End quote ---
That $10,000 difference had not a thing to do with my argument, which is apparently careening past your oh-so-well-trained scrutiny. I was pointing out how much less often a player can win the bonus game and still maintain the same budget when you jack the seed pot up from $10K to $25K. That's fine, like I said, it's moot anyhow.
--- Quote ---I'd love to have seen what John Carpenter would have done, but we'll never know.
--- End quote ---
And it doesn't matter, 'cuz everyone would just bitch that he got an easy stack of questions anyhow. :)
--- Quote ---Thanks for the debate on this, but I'm ready to move on to something else.
--- End quote ---
My pleasure. If someone reading this learned something, I consider the time well spent. :)
DrJWJustice:
I gotta answer these!:
--- Quote ---That $10,000 difference had not a thing to do with my argument, which is apparently careening past your oh-so-well-trained scrutiny.
--- End quote ---
Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment. That's not to say that I catch everything. In our line of work, if you're going to criticize (and we're expected to), we'd better be ready to take it in return. I've got an article I'm trying to get published that got a great review at a conference but has run into some serious questions in the publication review process. Oh well. C'est la vie.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---I'd love to have seen what John Carpenter would have done, but we'll never know.
--- End quote ---
And it doesn't matter, 'cuz everyone would just bitch that he got an easy stack of questions anyhow. :)
--- End quote ---
That, and he'd pull a Billy Crystal in the Alphabetics round while he was at it!
Robert Hutchinson:
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Well, here's the problem. Chris (and Brandon and I) were arguing strictly about economics from the get-go. Furthermore, when we say \"bad economics makes for a bad game show\", we don't mean \"I'm watching this show, and I know they can't afford this prize budget, so I don't like it.\" What we mean is \"they can't afford this prize budget, so the show won't last.\"
The reason we think this way is because the vast majority of people who post \"more money for Game Show X would be good\" honestly don't see why every show doesn't bump up its jackpot on a regular basis. A few, of course, are actually willing to back it up with hypothetical positive audience response. And a few, sadly, are expressing the thought \"I like more money rather than less\" as though it were some sort of blinding insight. :)
clemon79:
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 03:44 AM\'] Furthermore, when we say \"bad economics makes for a bad game show\", we don't mean \"I'm watching this show, and I know they can't afford this prize budget, so I don't like it.\" What we mean is \"they can't afford this prize budget, so the show won't last.\"[/quote]
Yes! Preach on! I like a 50K jackpot as much as the next man! I also like my game shows to not get canned in 13 weeks! :)
--- Quote ---A few, of course, are actually willing to back it up with hypothetical positive audience response.
--- End quote ---
Right, and what I've been trying to show is that the audience response in question needs to be significantly more positive than one might expect, unless you're the Number One syndicated show for umpteen billions of years, can charge so much for a :30 that you're hemmoraging money, and can get away with the occasional 100K payoff as a publicity stunt. (And as we've seen, more of those few people who are spinning onto that 100K card are losing it than winning it.)
Thank you for this, Robert. This summarizes my argument (and, as always, I use the word \"argument\" in the logical sense) PERFECTLY.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version