The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: tommycharles on April 25, 2004, 11:26:28 PM
-
Quiet Saturday Goes to CBS
Fast National ratings for Saturday, April 24, 2004
A lineup of original shows gave CBS a ratings win Saturday over movies
on ABC and NBC and FOX's crime shows.
CBS averaged a 5.4 rating/10 share for the night, overcoming FOX's
4.5/9. NBC was third at 4.2/8, and ABC trailed at 2.7/5.
FOX led among adults 18-49 with a 2.7 rating. NBC and CBS tied for
second at 1.8, while ABC came in at 1.5 in the demographic.
A prime-time "Price Is Right" special, 5.1/11, gave CBS the lead at 8
p.m. An hour's worth of "Cops" on FOX was second at 4.0/8. NBC was
third with the movie "Space Cowboys," 3.3/7, which beat ABC's movie
offering, "Almost Famous."
Ratings information is taken from fast national data. All numbers are
preliminary and subject to change.
Not the best rating for a Price special, but it did out do COPS by a full point, which has to count for something.
-
[quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Apr 25 2004, 11:26 PM\']
A prime-time "Price Is Right" special, 5.1/11, gave CBS the lead at 8 p.m. An hour's worth of "Cops" on FOX was second at 4.0/8. ...
Not the best rating for a Price special, but it did out do COPS by a full point, which has to count for something.
The good news is, that's likely good enough for CBS to keep making these specials. The bad news, off-topic as it may be, is that even though The District remains Saturday's top draw, TV Guide reports that Team Eye will probably cancel it next month anyway. Word is that they plan to move away from high-cost scripted programming on low-yield Saturday nights. However, if I was Les Moonves, I'd stay with six MDS's a season tops, three at a time.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Apr 25 2004, 10:56 PM\']
The good news is, that's likely good enough for CBS to keep making these specials. The bad news, off-topic as it may be, is that even though The District remains Saturday's top draw, TV Guide reports that Team Eye will probably cancel it next month anyway. Word is that they plan to move away from high-cost scripted programming on low-yield Saturday nights. However, if I was Les Moonves, I'd stay with six MDS's a season tops, three at a time. [/quote]
And if *I* were Les Moonves, I'd have made sure Letterman followed up on his promise of a 10th Aniversary prime time special. But that, again, is off topic.
I don't think a regular sat. night game show would be all that out of place on the Eye net, but Price isn't the one.
-
I don't think a regular sat. night game show would be all that out of place on the Eye net, but Price isn't the one.
And besides -- would Bob and the gang be able to handle the MDSs on a weekly basis, rather than the occasional appearances that is occuring now?
-
[quote name=\'rugrats1\' date=\'Apr 25 2004, 11:34 PM\']
I don't think a regular sat. night game show would be all that out of place on the Eye net, but Price isn't the one.
And besides -- would Bob and the gang be able to handle the MDSs on a weekly basis, rather than the occasional appearances that is occuring now? [/quote]
I dunno -- probably not. Look the value of those prizes that were on the show. I mean, it's not every day that you see a Dodge Viper in a Showcase!!! (What I wouldn't give to be behind the while of one of those!). I'm with the group that says do these MDS specials every now and then, kinda like ABC's doing Super Millionaire two or three times per year for $10 million as the top prize, while the daily syndie show goes for $1 million as its top prize.
I'm just WAITING for Chris Lemon to drop in with his patented Mo' Money Syndrome argument -- and this is one case when I would actually agree with him on it.
-
As would I... am I the only one left who has ideas for shows with average payouts of less than $10,000-$20,000 per day?
Obviously so... but then again I'm a cheap man.... unlike Bob Stewart who is even cheaper, hehe <ducks vigorously>
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Apr 25 2004, 11:01 PM\'] I'm just WAITING for Chris Lemon to drop in with his patented Mo' Money Syndrome argument -- and this is one case when I would actually agree with him on it. [/quote]
Obviously I don't need to, because some of you folks are finally learning.
-
In the Cullen era they were doing five weekday shows and one higher-stakes prime time edition each week. I don't think the audience would tire of a weekly prime time show, especially on low-rent Saturdays. The ratings have certainly justified the specials, and I bet a weekly show wouldn't see that much of a drop-off.
The overriding concern for all of this, of course, is how much longer Barker wants to keep going. But his ego would certainly be served by being a prime-time star this late in his career. If Moonves wants a cost-efficient way of staying in the network TV game on Saturdays, he could do a lot worse than a weekly TPIR.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Apr 26 2004, 01:01 AM\'] I dunno -- probably not. Look the value of those prizes that were on the show. I mean, it's not every day that you see a Dodge Viper in a Showcase!!! [/quote]
No, but just imagine the winning streak that would lead to if they did!
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Apr 26 2004, 01:01 AM\'] I'm just WAITING for Chris Lemon to drop in with his patented Mo' Money Syndrome argument -- and this is one case when I would actually agree with him on it. [/quote]
I must have missed something vital, because I always thought that "Mo' Money Syndrome" was when a crappy show tried to impress people by throwing "mo' money" at it. I guess not.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 08:26 AM\'] I must have missed something vital, because I always thought that "Mo' Money Syndrome" was when a crappy show tried to impress people by throwing "mo' money" at it. I guess not. [/quote]
"Mo' Money Syndrome", as I understand it, doesn't have anything to do with whether the game it refers to is crappy or not. It's just the general, mistaken belief that if you give away bigger prizes, that automatically makes your game better.
It's also been used to critique fictional "proposals" that have no concept of the limitations of a prize budget.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 06:57 AM\'] [quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 08:26 AM\'] I must have missed something vital, because I always thought that "Mo' Money Syndrome" was when a crappy show tried to impress people by throwing "mo' money" at it. I guess not. [/quote]
"Mo' Money Syndrome", as I understand it, doesn't have anything to do with whether the game it refers to is crappy or not. It's just the general, mistaken belief that if you give away bigger prizes, that automatically makes your game better.
It's also been used to critique fictional "proposals" that have no concept of the limitations of a prize budget. [/quote]
Matt has it prezactly right. :)
-
more money thrown at a mediocre product...
why can't I get "Mo Money Syndrome" written into my next contract at work?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 10:32 AM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 06:57 AM\'] [quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 08:26 AM\'] I must have missed something vital, because I always thought that "Mo' Money Syndrome" was when a crappy show tried to impress people by throwing "mo' money" at it. I guess not. [/quote]
"Mo' Money Syndrome", as I understand it, doesn't have anything to do with whether the game it refers to is crappy or not. It's just the general, mistaken belief that if you give away bigger prizes, that automatically makes your game better.
It's also been used to critique fictional "proposals" that have no concept of the limitations of a prize budget. [/quote]
Matt has it prezactly right. :) [/quote]
You mean the $2,000,000 Bargain Hunters wouldn't be a hit? :)
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Apr 26 2004, 07:41 AM\']In the Cullen era they were doing five weekday shows and one higher-stakes prime time edition each week. I don't think the audience would tire of a weekly prime time show, especially on low-rent Saturdays. The ratings have certainly justified the specials, and I bet a weekly show wouldn't see that much of a drop-off.
The overriding concern for all of this, of course, is how much longer Barker wants to keep going. But his ego would certainly be served by being a prime-time star this late in his career. If Moonves wants a cost-efficient way of staying in the network TV game on Saturdays, he could do a lot worse than a weekly TPIR.[/quote]
Maybe CBS would want to do Saturday night Price is Right for 25 episodes between September and May, with reality show Big Brother serving as a summer replacement.
Of course, 25 episodes of a Saturday night Price could, for the sake of Bob's health, come at the expense of 5 weeks' worth of daytime episodes [i.e., 5 more weeks of daytime reruns].
Also, I don't think all of these episodes have to be "Million Dollar Spectaculars" [except during sweeps weeks, which all the networks play to these days], but that shouldn't stop it from offering higher-stakes cash [$100,000 "Plinko"] and prizes [like a Dodge Viper].
-
If taking $1 million out of the primetime show is such a case, how much money would that $1.00 be on the bonus spin?
-
I think the themed specials that aired before the MDSs started had $100,000 as the top prize in the bonus spin, so if the prime-time specials should go regular again, maybe they'll take that route.
The question, though, is would reducing the jackpot affect viewership? In other words, would prime-time Price viewers get spoiled on the $1 million concept and not accept the $100,000 version?
-
[quote name=\'rugrats1\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 06:57 AM\'] I think the themed specials that aired before the MDSs started had $100,000 as the top prize in the bonus spin, so if the prime-time specials should go regular again, maybe they'll take that route.
[/quote]
One option is to make the million dollars available to those who are DSWs. The odds of it are much less than getting 1.00 on the bonus spin, and with showcases on the primetime specials two to three times as much as the Showcase yesterday's daytime DSW bid on, it wouldn't happen more than once a season...
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 10:32 AM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 06:57 AM\'] [quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 08:26 AM\'] I must have missed something vital, because I always thought that "Mo' Money Syndrome" was when a crappy show tried to impress people by throwing "mo' money" at it. I guess not. [/quote]
"Mo' Money Syndrome", as I understand it, doesn't have anything to do with whether the game it refers to is crappy or not. It's just the general, mistaken belief that if you give away bigger prizes, that automatically makes your game better.
It's also been used to critique fictional "proposals" that have no concept of the limitations of a prize budget. [/quote]
Matt has it prezactly right. :) [/quote]
Now that you finally put a Webster's treatment on your definition, I can actually say I agree with you, Chris. It's all in how you explain your concept.
And if Password were ever to return, I STILL would bump Alphabetics to $20-25k if it were to return on inflation grounds alone, not on "Mo' Money," to make it better. We can argue again about that another time. (sigh) Back to grading.
-
I'm curious why this special didn't do as well as the others. Granted, it beat COPS, but I don't know why it didn't do as well as the others.
Maybe this one aired too soon after the last one?
I would hope this next special does better, if not at least the same as the last one.
I did make 2 suggestions for upcoming shows:
-Price is Right salutes Todd Newton.
Rich Fields: Tonight the Price is Right salutes Todd Netwon
Viewers at home looking at each other: Todd who?
This one I liked even though it would never come to fruition:
-Price is Right salutes Game show hosts. 1 game show host would play a pricing game.
Jim Lange playing Bullseye
Peter Marshall playing Secret X
Wink Martindale playing Dice game
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 09:48 AM\'] And if Password were ever to return, I STILL would bump Alphabetics to $20-25k if it were to return on inflation grounds alone, not on "Mo' Money," to make it better. [/quote]
...and you'd STILL be wrong, at least in my eyes, because I'm not convinced yet that a bump from $10K to something higher is necessary for a big prize on a game show. Notice the Osmond Pyramid played with the same prize levels the Clark version twenty years ago. Maybe for a show like Feud where you're dividing the loot five ways, but for one player, I can't think of one who wouldn't be thrilled to win $10K.
And why can't, and this is especially for you young'uns still in school and such, "a game show is on at night" be it's own reward, without having to give away Vipers and play Plinko for Eleventy Billion Dollars and make sure someone spins for Another Meeeeeelion Dollars and what not? Man, I used to LIVE for those All-Star Family Feud Specials, and the dollar values they played for were the same as the daytime show save for the extra $10K in the very last Fast Money, and it was all for charity anyhow so it didn't matter. I would BET you, if they had a nice updated-for-nighttime set, and simply TREATED it like a special occasion (remember how Dawson would always wear a tux?), it would pull the same numbers whether someone played Golden Road for a Dodge Viper or a Dodge Dart.
-
Bob did wear tux for the 86 specials for the record
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 01:17 PM\'] Bob did wear tux for the 86 specials for the record [/quote]
Thank you, Zach. :P
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 01:13 PM\'] [quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 09:48 AM\'] And if Password were ever to return, I STILL would bump Alphabetics to $20-25k if it were to return on inflation grounds alone, not on "Mo' Money," to make it better. [/quote]
...and you'd STILL be wrong, at least in my eyes, because I'm not convinced yet that a bump from $10K to something higher is necessary for a big prize on a game show. Notice the Osmond Pyramid played with the same prize levels the Clark version twenty years ago. Maybe for a show like Feud where you're dividing the loot five ways, but for one player, I can't think of one who wouldn't be thrilled to win $10K. [/quote]
Hey, Chris, I'd be thrilled with $10k, or even $5k. As it is, I'll have to settle for my income tax return check right now. (I'll bite on this anyways. What the hell -- I could use a brief break from grading.) Let's not forget that Family Feud's current incarnation doubled its prize during its current run, as did Jeopardy. Did the 'mo money' improve the games? I don't think it did. Did it need to happen? Not necessarily. Did it improve ratings? To be honest, I haven't researched it, but I'll bet that it probably didn't. The fact remains that they did it anyways.
Your argument, as I understood it, is that 'mo money' improves the game. Let me be clear -- this suggested increase takes into account one factor and one alone, and that's the fact that a dollar isn't worth today what it was when these shows first aired. By your own definition given above, 'Mo Money Syndrome' doesn't apply. Now that my voice is gone, I don't think more money would improve the gameplay on PW. That's done by adjusting the rules of play themselves. If I were trying to improve Password simply by raising Alphabetics' post, your 'Mo Money Syndrome' would most certainly apply. Did upping Super Millionaire's pot to $10 million improve the game? No, not on its own. All that it did do was to increase the risk of taking the next question and the potential payouts. Adding the two extra lifelines and coupling them with the extra dough did improve the game somewhat.
If the budget can handle giving away a higher paycheck, then let's reward contestants for their abilities with a higher jackpot. That was the sole reason behind J!'s doubling of its pot, among others. Hollywood Squares raised its payouts in the current series from what they were when John Davidson hosted (and subsequently reduced them when viewership numbers went down -- so there's your economics argument at work).
Now, if I were to do something like $10,000 as a base for Alphabetics -- which is still an increase over both Password Plus and Super Password, mind you -- and then offer something like a double-or-nothing if the player won by playing a Ca$hword-style game, some people might consider that an improvement. Some might not. It all depends on taste. PW's never really been a very climactic show in my book, save for when SP's pot got high after a drought of wins. This might explain why it's not returned to the airwaves as some of our favourite classic shows have returned (albeit often screwed up by Pearson/Freemantle).
Now, if you still want to disagree with me, OK, fine. I believe you've said you've worked in the industry before. Well, great! I still reserve the right to my opinon, just as you reserve the right to yours, and diversity of opinion is a great thing in my opinion, especially in here. I don't think there's any 'right' or 'wrong' about it. The issue is not as black-and-white as we've been portraying it, now that I think about it.
-
Let me be clear -- this suggested increase takes into account one factor and one alone, and that's the fact that a dollar isn't worth today what it was when these shows first aired.
Well, whoever said that a game show is required to keep pace with inflation? Password in any form is ancient history to most viewers, and we're the only ones who are going to remember the old prize structure and compare it with the new.
I think the object of this little exercise is to think not as a fan, but as a producer. Does a $10K prize look cheap? Would a $25K prize look SO much better than more people will tune in as a result? Because if giving away $25K doesn't do any more for your ratings that giving away $10K, do the latter and you have a smaller production cost. To increase the payout *just* because of inflation concerns is merely throwing your money away.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 02:19 PM\'] Let's not forget that Family Feud's current incarnation doubled its prize during its current run, as did Jeopardy. Did the 'mo money' improve the games? I don't think it did. Did it need to happen? Not necessarily. Did it improve ratings? To be honest, I haven't researched it, but I'll bet that it probably didn't. The fact remains that they did it anyways.
[/quote]
And I don't understand why, nor did I care for those changes. I'm nothing if not consistent in this belief, you gotta give me that. :)
and that's the fact that a dollar isn't worth today what it was when these shows first aired. By your own definition given above, 'Mo Money Syndrome' doesn't apply.
But that doesn't mean it should be done, either. The perception, no matter what 5K was worth when Cullen was on Blockbusters, is that $10K is an adequate grand prize in most cases.
If the budget can handle giving away a higher paycheck, then let's reward contestants for their abilities with a higher jackpot.
Okay, but NOT AT THE LOSS OF ANYTHING ELSE. If the prize budget is already at an acceptable level for the viewer, you invest in EVERYTHING else: promotion, set or equipment overhauls, hell, even better writers - before you jack up the prize budget. "We still have to Chyron the scores because you jacked up the prizes last season" is a problem.
The answer to a question that starts with "Why not?" is almost always "Why so?"
Now, if you still want to disagree with me, OK, fine.
Thank you for your permission. I think I shall. :)
I still reserve the right to my opinon, just as you reserve the right to yours, and diversity of opinion is a great thing in my opinion, especially in here.
Without question, which is why I qualified my comments above with the phrase "at least in my eyes". I speak for nobody else.