With the success of Family Feud lately, should the show raise there $20,000 Fast Money prize, which has been in place since Louie Anderson?
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1671/notthisshitagainep0.jpg
Pros: Gain viewership, gain interest, progressive jackpot (+$5,000 a day)
1) No it wouldn\'t, 2) No it wouldn\'t, 3) Not naming a pro. \"The good thing about eating carrots is you\'re eating carrots\".
Cons: Can they afford more than 20K? Does the top prize matter or is it all [the ratings] on Steve?
That one.
No, and if you include the Bullseye season(s?), they did offer up to $30,000. Contrary to popular belief, Mo\' Money only does but so much for the ratings. Upping the jackpot to $25,000+ is not going to do much.
That being said, the jackpot is fine where it is. $20,000 is still a decent chunk of money, even split.
bandit_bobby, is that you?
Since there are returning champions, they generally already run the shows in order.
I had always liked the idea of what they did in Australia on Bert\'s Family Feud a few years back where the Fast Money jackpot was determined by the amount of number one answers the first player gets in their half of Fast Money. I wouldn\'t do it here for 100k like they did down under, but if I were looking to mix things up a bit, I would dump the car for five wins bit and make the top prize in Fast Money $50,000 (Base of $25k, with $5k being added for each #1 answer given by the first player) and start pushing the \"families could take home up to $250,000\" angle.
and start pushing the \"families could take home up to $250,000\" angle.
My thing is this, though: 200 points in Fast Money would never deserve a quarter of a million dollars, or anywhere near that. The excitement comes from the family inching closer and closer to 200, not the amount of money they\'re playing for.
I just wish they\'d drag Fast Money into, say, the 1990s by increasing the consolation prize from $5 to $10 a point.
and start pushing the \"families could take home up to $250,000\" angle.
My thing is this, though: 200 points in Fast Money would never deserve a quarter of a million dollars, or anywhere near that. The excitement comes from the family inching closer and closer to 200, not the amount of money they\'re playing for.
The quarter million, at least in that example, would require winning Fast Money five times. Still too much money, but not as bad as you suggest.
I had always liked the idea of what they did in Australia on Bert\'s Family Feud a few years back where the Fast Money jackpot was determined by the amount of number one answers the first player gets in their half of Fast Money. I wouldn\'t do it here for 100k like they did down under, but if I were looking to mix things up a bit, I would dump the car for five wins bit and make the top prize in Fast Money $50,000 (Base of $25k, with $5k being added for each #1 answer given by the first player) and start pushing the \"families could take home up to $250,000\" angle.
Have you ever heard of a game show called Winning Streak, which also advertised a six figure prize that would be damn near impossible to win considering the circumstances, much like your idea is doing here?
Have you ever heard of a game show called Winning Streak, which also advertised a six figure prize that would be damn near impossible to win considering the circumstances, much like your idea is doing here?
Or indeed another game called The Weakest Link, whose host touted a potential seven-figure prize that no group of contesti even got 20% of the way to?
I just wish they'd drag Fast Money into, say, the 1990s by increasing the consolation prize from $5 to $10 a point.This, this, a million times this (and for the record, inflation says it should've been $10/point when Combs became host in 1988). It just looks cheap since Wheel, Jeopardy!, and Millionaire at least have a minimum of $1,000 to alleviate travel expenses. On Feud...there's no actual minimum.
Have you ever heard of a game show called Winning Streak, which also advertised a six figure prize that would be damn near impossible to win considering the circumstances, much like your idea is doing here?Compared to the individual maximum of quadruple said amount (which was like trying to eat the Sun) and the maximum possible Final Showdown for close to One Million Damn Dollars (you were more likely to win a three-on-one fight against Matt Ottinger, Chuck Norris, and Segata Sanshiro without suffering any injury whatsoever), getting $100,000 was easy.
Since there are returning champions, they generally already run the shows in order.
This is not true. Put simply in words you might understand, they do not do this.
People now watch the show for Steve, not prize money or the families. The shows are not run in any particular order. You might as well have Steve say to the champs: \"We\'ll have you back on an upcoming show to defend your championship.\"
I have no problem with them upping the price of a win, even significantly. $50,000 is fine. Given the win ratio of approx one in five shows, a prize budget of $50,000 a week is more than affordable.
I\'m in the minority. a bigger jackpot, to me, does raise interest, excitement, and possibly ratings. A \'too large\' jackpot does not. Give them something that you \'want\' to win...just enough of a life changing amount of money without being silly about it.
I look at the $25,000 Pyramid (Cullen) as an example. In 1974, for many people , that was approximately a year\'s salary - and a helluva reward for winning a game show. Ditto the cash wins for Wheel in the late 80s. There are lots of other examples. Why can\'t you give a team something really nice for their hard work and luck? They certainly can afford it, esp with the revenue they\'re getting for much higher ratings this season.
And yes, $5/point for a loss is absolutely silly in this day and age - especially when split 5 ways.
If anything, I definitely have no issues with a) increasing the consolation payouts in Fast Money, b) some sort of consolation for the losing family. I hate that Fremantle has an aversion to paying consolation money to contestants...there\'s budget-saving, then there\'s just cheap.
$5 in 1976 is $20 now, but $10 a point is just fine. The idea that a family could go undefeated, not win a single Fast Money round, but go home with a car and less than $5,000 cash is laughable IMO.
I just wish they\'d drag Fast Money into, say, the 1990s by increasing the consolation prize from $5 to $10 a point.
This I absolutely agree with. As for the jackpot, maybe raise it by $2,500 each time it\'s not won. Put a limit of $50K on it in case you get a successive number of families that blow chunks in the Fast Money round.
Make it like J! and get a sponsor like Aleve and give departing families a grand per player just for appearing on the show.
As for the jackpot, maybe raise it by $2,500 each time it\'s not won. Put a limit of $50K on it in case you get a successive number of families that blow chunks in the Fast Money round.\"Since nobody won Fast Money last time we put $2,500 in the jackpot so that means the family that wins today will play for--oh my chocolate babies!--$22,500!\"
21st Century \"Family Feud\" is one of the most tight-wadded currently-running shows when it comes to awarding consolation prizes. Front game points should be in dollars with a house minimum of $500 for the losing family, and $10/point for losing in the Fast Money round.
You\'re not giving away Rice-A-Roni nor the home version(s) of the game hand-over-fist anymore, so at least guarantee each player $100 for their participation when all is said & done.
Does anyone know if Feud pays for travel anymore? Wheel and Jep do not.
To me, this makes a huge diff in determining what constitutes a \'consolation prize\' for participating.
21st Century \"Family Feud\" is one of the most tight-wadded currently-running shows when it comes to awarding consolation prizes. Front game points should be in dollars with a house minimum of $500 for the losing family, and $10/point for losing in the Fast Money round.
You\'re not giving away Rice-A-Roni nor the home version(s) of the game hand-over-fist anymore, so at least guarantee each player $100 for their participation when all is said & done.
Then doesn\'t it make more sense to leave the front game points alone? \"Oh, family A wins with $3XX, but family B you get $500 for coming.\" I know you\'ll make it up in Fast Money but it just seems counterproductive and would lead to bad TV.
Now, onto WeatherMatt\'s question- I work with someone who went on Feud when it was in Orlando, and from what he told me they did pay for everyone to come out. So as far as I know they did at one point but I don\'t know if, once production moved to the ATL, that stayed (although I\'d assume yes).
Since there are returning champions, they generally already run the shows in order.This is not true. Put simply in words you might understand, they do not do this.
See also: Temptation, US. Holy crap did that mess up -- references to the next show were always, always \"next time\" and they didn\'t get around to the first tapings until March 2008. And even if a champ left, there was still the growing-to-$5,000 Instant Cash.
...But Jeopardy! has zero problem airing in order and announcing when champs will take time off due to an upcoming special week. It really isn\'t hard to schedule episodes to air in order, unless you deliberately tape out of order (Wheel).
(On the other hand, Crosswords didn\'t have returning champs and paid dearly by playing format hopscotch.)
Then doesn\'t it make more sense to leave the front game points alone? \"Oh, family A wins with $3XX, but family B you get $500 for coming.\" I know you\'ll make it up in Fast Money but it just seems counterproductive and would lead to bad TV.
Hence my suggestion to give losing families $1,000 instead. The winners of a particular episode then get that when they lose.
Another idea: get rid of the championship limits. Really, there\'s no reason for it to be there anymore...and for that matter, there\'s no reason to award a car to five people who probably live in different homes.
QuoteSee also: Temptation, US. Holy crap did that mess up -- references to the next show were always, always \"next time\" and they didn\'t get around to the first tapings until March 2008. And even if a champ left, there was still the growing-to-$5,000 Instant Cash.
And the Instant Cash still grew on its predecessor, the actual Sale of the Century, no matter what. Not a good point to argue with.
Quote...But Jeopardy! has zero problem airing in order and announcing when champs will take time off due to an upcoming special week. It really isn\'t hard to schedule episodes to air in order, unless you deliberately tape out of order (Wheel).
No there isn\'t but Jeopardy! is a completely different beast.
Quote(On the other hand, Crosswords didn\'t have returning champs and paid dearly by playing format hopscotch.)
I\'m willing to bet the \"format hopscotch\" thing was about as far from the reason why Crosswords failed as it was that the game mechanics were broken. And I gotta argue against that anyway, because it wasn\'t \"format hopscotch\". It was \"payout hopscotch.\"
Then doesn\'t it make more sense to leave the front game points alone? \"Oh, family A wins with $3XX, but family B you get $500 for coming.\" I know you\'ll make it up in Fast Money but it just seems counterproductive and would lead to bad TV.
Hence my suggestion to give losing families $1,000 instead. The winners of a particular episode then get that when they lose.
[/quote]
Which solves nothing.
Another idea: get rid of the championship limits. Really, there\'s no reason for it to be there anymore...and for that matter, there\'s no reason to award a car to five people who probably live in different homes.
Okay, Dan, then you pay for the family to keep flying back to Atlanta and back so they can disrupt their lives just to stay on Feud.
Most of the time limits are there for a reason, and I\'m willing to bet at least one of those reasons is because people aren\'t able to keep coming back multiple times. Hell, I\'m not really a fan of Jeopardy\'s decision to do that, but it\'s not really as big a deal.
And you are aware of the term \"forfeiture\", right?
You do realize who you\'re dealing with, Chris?
You do realize who you\'re dealing with, Chris?
Well aware, don\'t care. Ignoring people like Dan does nothing. You need to talk sense into them.
Well aware, don\'t care. Ignoring people like Dan does nothing. You need to talk sense into them.
I learned years ago that some folks aren\'t worth saving.
But by all means, please continue tilting at this particular windmill all you like.
See also: Temptation, US. Holy crap did that mess up -- references to the next show were always, always \"next time\" and they didn\'t get around to the first tapings until March 2008. And even if a champ left, there was still the growing-to-$5,000 Instant Cash.And the Instant Cash still grew on its predecessor, the actual Sale of the Century, no matter what. Not a good point to argue with.
I\'m not talking about Instant Cash growing -- my point was that Instant Cash was, for example, $1,000 on the first aired episode (single-run markets, at least) and sometimes bounced around in value because the show was airing out of order.
(As an aside, per an old topic on this forum, the single-run and double-run episodes actually switched slots shortly into the run.)
...But Jeopardy! has zero problem airing in order and announcing when champs will take time off due to an upcoming special week. It really isn\'t hard to schedule episodes to air in order, unless you deliberately tape out of order (Wheel).No there isn\'t but Jeopardy! is a completely different beast.
I\'m being serious when I ask this -- how so? Because it isn\'t being produced by Fremantle? Because it doesn\'t air double-run?
(On the other hand, Crosswords didn\'t have returning champs and paid dearly by playing format hopscotch.)I\'m willing to bet the \"format hopscotch\" thing was about as far from the reason why Crosswords failed as it was that the game mechanics were broken. And I gotta argue against that anyway, because it wasn\'t \"format hopscotch\". It was \"payout hopscotch.\"
Fair enough, and I appreciate the correction. :)
I\'m sure it was confusing to at least some people, though. \"They weren\'t playing for trips yesterday!\", for example, or -- and this actually happened to me because I was in a double-run market -- \"Why are they showing the episode they just got finished airing?\"
(Yes, the single-run and double-run schedules actually bounced around so much they ended up getting to the same episode on the same day. That...really shouldn\'t happen.)
Hence my suggestion to give losing families $1,000 instead. The winners of a particular episode then get that when they lose.
Which solves nothing.
Admittedly, I forgot about Feud paying families\' travel expenses, so thanks for the correction. If they still do that, then $500 consolation money is actually quite fine. If they don\'t, then it should be $1,000 in line with Wheel, Jeopardy!, and Millionaire.
You do realize who you\'re dealing with, Chris?
Well aware, don\'t care. Ignoring people like Dan does nothing. You need to talk sense into them.
Or what we call, feeding a troll. Have at it, then.
With Jeopardy the difference is the way the show is structured. If it didn\'t have returning champions then sure, get away with it if you want. To me the way the game is conducted is a little too rigid to change. You can\'t just have someone win one game, become champ, then have him disappear for a couple days so you can show someone else. Jeopardy is very linear.
Fair point on Jeopardy! being a different kind of game show than Feud and Temptation, but IMO the same principle should apply to all shows with returning players. Like you said, self-contained shows can get away with airing out of order, but it takes more effort to schedule a show like that and looks bad if you change your format or rules at some point during the season (Wheel Season 29, most of Crosswords\' run).
Mind you, airing out of order clearly hasn\'t hurt Feud in any way (getting its highest ratings since the Combs era is applause-worthy no matter what), but it\'s still annoying IMO.
Dear Mr.Benfield:
Why do shows owe losing contestants anything? Isn\'t a free trip enough? I think this, unfortunately is the result of a younger generation. People think things have to be \"even and fair\" regardless of circumstances. That\'s not the way the real world works. There\'s winners and losers.
It\'s so much an entitlement issue as much as it is the fact that it just seems cheap. esp. when Temptation did it with the \"Temptation Dollars\", which to me was laughable considering the opponent payouts would\'ve been a total of about $100 per episode, give or take.
I didn\'t know the show even provided the free trip, so that\'s a nice consolation. It\'s just shows for years (prior Feuds included) offered consolation prizes, either cash, Rice-a-Roni, or a Jeep boombox, so Fremantle looks like a bunch of cheapskates here.
They should totally raise the consolation money to $10 a point.
They should totally raise the consolation money to $10 a point.
I\'d back this, though if families are still getting comped for travel, then I\'m a little more ambivalent on the issue.
/Though I imagine Feud\'s getting comped for comping travel, too.
Why do shows owe losing contestants anything?\"Owe\" is the wrong word. It is a courtesy to give someone who does you a favor (and yes, contestants appearing on a game show are doing the production company a favor) that you do something in kind. In the old days you\'d have \"departing contestants will receive\" a recliner, a microwave range or the World Book Encyclopedia. It\'s a gesture of kindness: we\'re thanking you for taking time out from your life to indulge our little project. It also eases the sting of losing: you\'re not playing for $10,000 in the bonus round but we appreciate you all the same, hope you\'ll bring home fond memories and speak well of us.
I\'ll sidestep the question of what to give the losing families. I liked the Dawson-era (and most of the Combs-era) method of playing the main game for $1 a point and getting $5 a point in Fast Money because (during the $300 era) the total for a returing family on their first day gave you an idea of how they played. Less than $1,000 means that they had a bad FM, while $1,300+ meant that they had a combination of a respectable FM loss and a good opponent.
Why do shows owe losing contestants anything?
It\'s a gesture of kindness: we\'re thanking you for taking time out from your life to indulge our little project.
That\'s an excellent way to put it.
I\'ve worked on and assembled small film projects, mostly shorts. We\'ve occasionally had actors come from a few hours away, and comped them accordingly. We may have given them gas money, which would be close to the equivalent of travel expenses. But we also provided food as well.
Like Travis said, it\'s a gesture, a token of appreciation. No, we didn\'t \"owe\" them anything, and we could\'ve easily said they knew what they were getting into. But if we want them working with us in the future and telling others about how great we are, it\'s the kind of situation where you do to not look cheap.
BillCullen1:
Why should a family have the chance to earn more money because they lost the first time?
BCullen 1\'s response - It HAS been done on other game shows. Now You See It, Super Password, Shoot For The Stars and Rafferty\'s Blockbusters among them. They didn\'t seem to suffer because of it.
Dear Mr.Benfield:
Why do shows owe losing contestants anything? Isn\'t a free trip enough? I think this, unfortunately is the result of a younger generation. People think things have to be \"even and fair\" regardless of circumstances. That\'s not the way the real world works. There\'s winners and losers.It\'s so much an entitlement issue as much as it is the fact that it just seems cheap. esp. when Temptation did it with the \"Temptation Dollars\", which to me was laughable considering the opponent payouts would\'ve been a total of about $100 per episode, give or take.
Holy crap, I forgot about \"Temptation Dollars\" (I should\'ve remembered that the whole damn show was cheap from start to finish). I once read long ago that there apparently were consolation prizes, but they never said them on-air for some reason -- instead, anybody who won nothing got \"Lots of love and hugs from [Rossi].\" *gag*
Heck, Crosswords may have been cheap (don\'t know whether they paid travel expenses, but they definitely didn\'t have a house minimum) but they at least plugged their consolation prize -- a Croton watch with the show\'s logo in the center, specifically produced for the show.
I didn\'t know the show even provided the free trip, so that\'s a nice consolation. It\'s just shows for years (prior Feuds included) offered consolation prizes, either cash, Rice-a-Roni, or a Jeep boombox, so Fremantle looks like a bunch of cheapskates here.
Now, see, I thought Fremantle was a bunch of cheapskates except with American Idol, and even that\'s debatable.
Holy crap, I forgot about \"Temptation Dollars\" (I should\'ve remembered that the whole damn show was cheap from start to finish). I once read long ago that there apparently were consolation prizes, but they never said them on-air for some reason -- instead, anybody who won nothing got \"Lots of love and hugs from [Rossi].\" *gag*
Would that have been the \"Shop at Home\" items plugged during the commercial breaks? Now that you mention it, I thought I read they had their choice from that.
BillCullen1:
Why should a family have the chance to earn more money because they lost the first time?BCullen 1\'s response - It HAS been done on other game shows. Now You See It, Super Password, Shoot For The Stars and Rafferty\'s Blockbusters among them. They didn\'t seem to suffer because of it.
NYSI \'89- fifteen weeks
Shoot for the Stars- eight months
BB \'87- seventeen weeks
Not great examples to use here to reinforce your point. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn\'t. On Feud, there\'s no point.
Would that have been the \"Shop at Home\" items plugged during the commercial breaks? Now that you mention it, I thought I read they had their choice from that.
I don\'t think so; around midseason or so, they replaced the plugs you mention with a generic \"70% Off Retail\" plug for seenontemptation.com or whatever it was.
NYSI \'89- fifteen weeksAre you saying that the shows didn\'t last because of the rolling jackpots? Because Scrabble says \"yo\".
Shoot for the Stars- eight months
BB \'87- seventeen weeks
Are you saying that the shows didn\'t last because of the rolling jackpots? Because Scrabble says \"yo\".
Mark didn\'t actually cite anything...BillCullen1 did.
The way I read his argument was that every game show that had a rolling jackpot was a success. The only problem was that he cited three shows that failed within a few months- which, although I\'m 100% certain accumulating jackpots meant nothing in the success of the show, pretty much does his argument in. For every Super Password, Scrabble, and Lingo that succeed AND have a rolling jackpot, there\'s a Wordplay, All-Star Blitz, Break the Bank, and To Say the Least that had a growing jackpot but still failed.
Personally, I like the idea of adding a little more to the pot if someone tries and fails. But I also believe that some shows don\'t really need to include it.
Mark didn\'t actually cite anything...BillCullen1 did.
You\'re right. My mistake.
Mark didn\'t actually cite anything...BillCullen1 did.
You\'re right. My mistake.
I made the same one at first when I read it. It\'s cool.
I once read long ago that there apparently were consolation prizes [on Temptation], but they never said them on-air for some reason
Heck, Crosswords may have been cheap...but they at least plugged their consolation prize
You must realize what you\'re saying some of the time, at least. Crosswords mentioned the gift because it was a plug. The prize and/or money was exchanged. If you\'re even right about Temptation having gifts, if there wasn\'t a trade-out agreement where the plug helped the show somehow, there was no reason to mention it.
Fee plugs at the end of shows weren\'t to satiate Johnny Gilbert\'s need to hear his voice over theme music.
-Jason
I think this, unfortunately is the result of a younger generation. People think things have to be \"even and fair\" regardless of circumstances. That\'s not the way the real world works. There\'s winners and losers.The fact that you cannot differentiate between \"even and fair\" and \"winners and losers\" and lump it in with \"oh, it must be the kids these days\" reflects badly on you. Are you really suggesting that game shows oughtna be even and fair, or that the losers should be mocked and shunned and that all they should take home is a boot to the keister even if they were entertaining and played an exciting and smart game?
Why should a family have the chance to earn more money because they lost the first time?Why shouldn\'t they? Does it really get your britches in a gnarl that the Bonus Sprint jackpot could be $6,000 or more instead of just $5,000 every day? Or that Wordplay or Super Password (and so on) allow contestants to come back to the bonus round (after winning another game) to win more money?
Why shouldn\'t they? Does it really get your britches in a gnarl that the Bonus Sprint jackpot could be $6,000 or more instead of just $5,000 every day? Or that Wordplay or Super Password (and so on) allow contestants to come back to the bonus round (after winning another game) to win more moneyThanks for completely misinterpreting what I said. When I said \'more money\', I meant they should play for $20,000 again; not $25k. I never said they shouldn\'t get another appearance.
Are you saying that the shows didn\'t last because of the rolling jackpots? Because Scrabble says \"yo\"Scrabble only had a jackpot in the back half of the run, maybe less time than that.
Scrabble\'s Bonus Sprint was on for what, the last three and a half years of its run? Not exactly the \"back half\".
Thanks for completely misinterpreting what I said.What about \"even and fair\" or \"winners and losers\"? Who has ever said that everybody has to win on a game show, or that they shouldn\'t be \'even and fair\'?
Holy crap, I forgot about \"Temptation Dollars\" (I should\'ve remembered that the whole damn show was cheap from start to finish). I once read long ago that there apparently were consolation prizes, but they never said them on-air for some reason -- instead, anybody who won nothing got \"Lots of love and hugs from [Rossi].\" *gag
He better keep his lots of love away from Flo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P3M6gldX-A&list=UUzX4gPZ9x1iK29lv_sHhuDQ&index=12
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3211/matmonbag2ec0.gif
That was certainly unnecessary.
How\'s about this?
![http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1671/notthisshitagainep0.jpg](\"http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1671/notthisshitagainep0.jpg\"){kind=link}
![http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3211/matmonbag2ec0.gif](\"http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3211/matmonbag2ec0.gif\"){kind=link}
![this](\"http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q438/dale_grass/scrooge.jpg\"){kind=link}