LINGO Contestant line

[bttritle]

With apologies to the powers that be...if this gets moved, it gets moved...so be it.

I found this on a site called craigslist.org, where the contestant producer put this out for the show.  Struck me as odd, since it suggests a new quirk to the third season.

LINGO Audtion line

Ben T.

[cmjb13]

Mistake #1

Searching for contestants that are good looking. As if that will make for better game play. What ever happened to just playing the game?

I could be mistaken, but didn't most game shows of the past (70's,80's) not require you to send in a photo or look a certain way before you could become a contestant?

[Matt Ottinger]

I could be mistaken, but didn't most game shows of the past (70's,80's) not require you to send in a photo or look a certain way before you could become a contestant?

I think you actually are mistaken, to a point.  They probably weren't as explicit about it back then, but part of the job of a contestant coordinator is to find players that the audience will enjoy watching.  Even back in the fifties they knew that an attractive, outgoing contestant was better for a show than an ugly mumbler.  Back then, they even took the extreme step of making sure the attractive contestant usually won.

Being attractive is just one of several considerations, and it makes more of a difference for some shows than for others.  Still, even Jeopardy won't choose you if you're horribly disfigured or a sullen bore.  

I've already said elsewhere that of all the GSN shows, Lingo does itself the greatest disservice by placing looks and youth over game ability in their searches.  There's no meaningful reason to limit the age of the players to 18-32 except a misguided (and bizarre) effort to appeal to a particular demographic.  However, this isn't a new phenomena and it's certainly not limited to Lingo.

[Timsterino]

\"Jeesh\" is all I will say to that advertisement. If looks were a component for me being selected to be a contestant on WWTBAM, it would have never happened.  I am certainly no Tom Cruise.

I also just love the age discrimination. I know, I know....it is their show.

Tim :-)

[tvrandywest]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 07:22 AM\']They probably weren't as explicit about it back then, but part of the job of a contestant coordinator is to find players that the audience will enjoy watching.  [/quote]
Well said , Matt (as usual  ;-)  Let me take it one step further.

Attractiveness is one of several traits that makes for a good contestant. Always has been. TV is nothing more than a business that survives by delivering eyeballs to advertisers. The programming exists solely to attract viewers and then deliver them to the commercials. Visually appealing people are just good business. Visually appealing people half naked is even better business, and we've been seeing more of that on TV in the past few years than we did in the medium's first 50 years. Is it \"good\", \"bad\", \"fair\", \"weakening America's moral fiber\"? Those questions are never asked once past the guard gate at the studio lot.

And to the point about the age of contestants, as the advertising community continues and escalates what it started in the 1960s by placing  \"quality\" over \"quantity\" of those eyeballs (age, gender, etc. - aka \"demographics\") we will continue to primarily see people of a certain age because their contemporaries at home find it easiest to relate to people their own age, or so goes the common thinking.

Now THAT's \"reality TV\"   ;-)


Randy
tvrandywest.com

[Timsterino]

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 10:25 AM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 07:22 AM\']They probably weren't as explicit about it back then, but part of the job of a contestant coordinator is to find players that the audience will enjoy watching.  [/quote]
Well said , Matt (as usual  ;-)  Let me take it one step further.

Attractiveness is one of several traits that makes for a good contestant. Always has been. TV is nothing more than a business that survives by delivering eyeballs to advertisers. The programming exists solely to attract viewers and then deliver them to the commercials. Visually appealing people are just good business. Visually appealing people half naked is even better business, and we've been seeing more of that on TV in the past few years than we did in the medium's first 50 years. Is it \"good\", \"bad\", \"fair\", \"weakening America's moral fiber\"? Those questions are never asked once past the guard gate at the studio lot.

And to the point about the age of contestants, as the advertising community continues and escalates what it started in the 1960s by placing  \"quality\" over \"quantity\" of those eyeballs (age, gender, etc. - aka \"demographics\") we will continue to primarily see people of a certain age because their contemporaries at home find it easiest to relate to people their own age, or so goes the common thinking.

Now THAT's \"reality TV\"   ;-)


Randy
tvrandywest.com [/quote]
In the back of our minds I think we all understand this. Lingo is just being up front about it.

I wonder, however, how Millionaire was so successful without \"seeing\" the contestants before they came on the show (when the phone game was in place)? They took personality and looks out of the equation, put knowledge above the rest and the show still worked.

Tim :-)

[DrBear]

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 06:21 AM\']I could be mistaken, but didn't most game shows of the past (70's,80's) not require you to send in a photo or look a certain way before you could become a contestant?[/quote]
I think by then, they were mostly taking applications in person, so no photo was necessary; still, you probably had to look presentable (MG7X had more than its share of hottie female contestants, it seems, with the occasional grandma mixed in for contrast).

It was different in the 50s, in part because the New York shows would fly people in; I definitely remember WML saying you should send a photograph and it would not be returned. Since they were inviting you out there basically on an application and fone call, they needed the foto.

And when I tried out for J! last year and passed the test, they did take a foto. But now that I know I didn't get on because I'm a disfigured, sullen bore, that's OK.

Come to think of it, if disfigured, sullen bores are bad, why did so many people like \"Shrek?\"

[PeterMarshallFan]

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 07:21 AM\'] I could be mistaken, but didn't most game shows of the past (70's,80's) not require you to send in a photo or look a certain way before you could become a contestant? [/quote]
I can almost guarantee *I'd* never get on another show as opposed to 19 years ago.....so, yeah. It was there, but not nearly as bad as it is now.

[zachhoran]

I think TPIR might be the current game show that the 30s-50s generation has the best chance of getting on across the board, as I don't think outward appearances is their number one criterion for getting on.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 09:48 AM\'][quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 06:21 AM\']I could be mistaken, but didn't most game shows of the past (70's,80's) not require you to send in a photo or look a certain way before you could become a contestant?[/quote]
I think by then, they were mostly taking applications in person, so no photo was necessary; still, you probably had to look presentable (MG7X had more than its share of hottie female contestants, it seems, with the occasional grandma mixed in for contrast).[/quote]
Also, they pulled out the old Polaroid and took your photo to attach to the application.  According to Maxene Fabe, at the big producers the contestant coordinators would check their old files if you tried out for another show.  In other words, after my 1979 LA bomb at trying out for \"CS,\" there was no way in hell I would've been taken for \"Blockbusters\" two years later, because they would've compared my \"Blockbusters\" app with my \"CS\" app and said \"oh, this is the same schmuck we turned down already.\"  (Granted, the shows are two different types of game-playing skills, but a lot of producers seem to take a one-size-fits-all approach.)

On the other hand, Merv Griffin's people didn't take your picture until there already had been two elimination procedures, so you could very well go on \"J!\" even if you bombed on trying out for \"Wheel\" and vice versa.

It was different in the 50s, in part because the New York shows would fly people in; I definitely remember WML saying you should send a photograph and it would not be returned. Since they were inviting you out there basically on an application and fone call, they needed the foto.

And also, Gil Fates said that \"WML?\" thrived on incongruity--the 80-year-old female department store security guard, the male nurse, the female garbage collector that looked like a high-fashion model--so pictures were important in finding those opposites-attract kind of contestants.

I think of all this as I prepare to try out tomorrow for \"Pyramid.\"  I don't really want to discuss any more at this point, since you never knew who might be lurking, but I hope I do everything right.  Wish me luck.

[Matt Ottinger]

I wonder, however, how Millionaire was so successful without \"seeing\" the contestants before they came on the show (when the phone game was in place)? They took personality and looks out of the equation, put knowledge above the rest and the show still worked.

A perfect example of the silliness of \"common thinking\".  When a clever producer who knew what he was doing was left alone to create a show he thought people would want to see, he succeeded beyond measure.  When the network tinkered with it to make it \"better\", it crashed almost overnight.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Timsterino\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 07:45 AM\'] I wonder, however, how Millionaire was so successful without "seeing" the contestants before they came on the show (when the phone game was in place)? [/quote]
 Because that WAS the appeal of the show. ANYBODY could get there. All of us ugly people looked in and said \"Wow. That could just as easily be me.\"

Millionaire lost all of it's appeal for me the second the phone game went out the window. Because it was no longer \"Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?\", it was \"Which One Of You Good-Looking Young People Would Like A Chance To Be A Millionaire?\"

I think what I find most dissolusioning is the realization that all of my lives, all of those contestant coordinators in all of those news stories and bits on 20/20 and such that I saw on TV were full of Grade-A Olympic Class Bullshit. They all looked me in the eye and said \"Naw, doesn't matter what you look like. We're looking for people who are fun and energetic and want to play the game and win money!\" 'Cuz it's bad PR to look in the camera and say \"Oh, you ugly folks need not apply.\"

Now that they're decided that there are enough good-looking folks out there that they don't care what the ugly ones think, they can afford to be more open about it, I suppose.

And, of course, I keep watching, so I guess they win, right?

[tvrandywest]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 11:31 AM\']All of us ugly people looked in and said \"Wow. That could just as easily be me.\"[/quote]
What's the deal? Is this a board full of self-proclaimed \"ugly\" people? Is this disfiguredanonymous.com?

Take it from someone who got plenty of laughs when he drew the \"You won 2nd place in a beauty pageant\" card in Monopoly. Unlike the reality shows (DogEatDog, BoyEatsBoy, etc.) the classic shows are not only looking for beautiful people. There's plenty of room for presentable, pleasant, confident, outgoing folks, as well as \"types\". TPIR uses lots of \"types\" - a big footballer, a little old lady - unique looks with personalities to match. People who appear comfortable in their own skin, no matter how different it is.

I can't tell you how many otherwise plain and acceptable people I've seen show up for contestant cattle calls with ill-fitting or stained clothes, really bad hair days, severe acne, or generally bad grooming and hygiene, and a goofy, defensive attitude to match.

You SERIOUSLY want on? For the love of game shows (and for the love of yourself) think make-over. Think Queer Eye. I've tried to make the best hand with the cards I've been dealt, although I still cringe looking at pictures from my college years.

From trimming ear hair that is long enough to braid, to a few dermatologist visits,  to cosmetic dentistry to shopping with someone who understands style and how clothes can camouflage (instead of accentuate) imperfections to a manicure to some pro hair styling I think anybody can improve their appearance. The best accessory is a sincere smile and an ingratiating demeanor.

What a strange freakin' post! I was just so saddened to read how people were excluding themselves.  

;-(       ----->       :-)

Randy
tvrandywest.com

[tommycharles]

Was the 18-32 rule the same way in the last season? If not, then I have no problem with the change: RC said in an interview with Steve that he wanted to change the show to make it more \"18-34\"-ish for this season, and if that's the biggest change that they're making, fine by me.

[Timsterino]

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 02:15 PM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 29 2003, 11:31 AM\']All of us ugly people looked in and said "Wow. That could just as easily be me."[/quote]
What's the deal? Is this a board full of self-proclaimed "ugly" people? Is this disfiguredanonymous.com?

Take it from someone who got plenty of laughs when he drew the "You won 2nd place in a beauty pageant" card in Monopoly. Unlike the reality shows (DogEatDog, BoyEatsBoy, etc.) the classic shows are not only looking for beautiful people. There's plenty of room for presentable, pleasant, confident, outgoing folks, as well as "types". TPIR uses lots of "types" - a big footballer, a little old lady - unique looks with personalities to match. People who appear comfortable in their own skin, no matter how different it is.

I can't tell you how many otherwise plain and acceptable people I've seen show up for contestant cattle calls with ill-fitting or stained clothes, really bad hair days, severe acne, or generally bad grooming and hygiene, and a goofy, defensive attitude to match.

You SERIOUSLY want on? For the love of game shows (and for the love of yourself) think make-over. Think Queer Eye. I've tried to make the best hand with the cards I've been dealt, although I still cringe looking at pictures from my college years.

From trimming ear hair that is long enough to braid, to a few dermatologist visits,  to cosmetic dentistry to shopping with someone who understands style and how clothes can camouflage (instead of accentuate) imperfections to a manicure to some pro hair styling I think anybody can improve their appearance. The best accessory is a sincere smile and an ingratiating demeanor.

What a strange freakin' post! I was just so saddened to read how people were excluding themselves.  

;-(       ----->       :-)

Randy
tvrandywest.com [/quote]
 Randy is very right.

I actually went through a process when I auditioned for 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire'. I had my friends give me fashion advice, I cut my hair and I shaved. I think more than anything it helped my confidence at the audition.

I guess the analogy is like going for a job interview. You are not going to go to the interview in the shorts you wore yesterday to paint the house.

I doubt anybody here is ugly. I admit that I am no Brad Pitt or what have you. I just have to work a little harder, (ok a lot harder ;-)), to be up to par with presentability.

I just think the Lingo ad struck a nerve with me initially. I can not believe I am a year away from being considered too old for their show. We certainly can not control how old we are. ;-)

Tim :-)