My theory on the backstories dates back to whenever NBC got the Olympics.
I make a lot of analogies between sports and game shows. I understand they're nowhere near the same level when it comes to economics. But I think a lot can be gained by treating them the same way, particularly with doing them live to tape, etc. You'd never do a pickup of a free throw because the camera was out of position. Frankly, the camera would almost NEVER be out of position in basketball, whereas on modern game shows it can be, but I digress.
To that end, I think story packages CAN have a place. To go to sports, I think they make sense at the Olympics, because the whole thing is about a long journey to one moment in time, a life spent training, etc. And I think they're OK on game shows where the action isn't too dense. Deal or No Deal is a perfect example. Sure, some countries play it a little more straight. But there's an obvious appeal in tying the big six-figure swings on a U.S. version to a compelling personal story. You're not distracting from a barrage of questions, or competition between multiple players.
But on shows that are format driven, I really start to question how much is enough when it comes to contestant chat. You shouldn't stop a football game mid-drive to show a 3-minute package about one player. People are watching for the competition. Similarly, when you've got a dense game show, I think the audience is coming for that, first and foremost. If not, why not do a talk show instead? You can still develop that sort of personal attachment on a game-heavy show organically; returning champions would be one way to do it.
If there's loads of research that says regular people won't watch regular people play a regular game no matter what, then the story-forward strategy makes sense. I just have a feeling that certain shows are making that choice for the viewers, rather than the other away around.
-Jason
