Author Topic: Family Feud's payout strutcure (Read 31191 times)

johnnya2k3 · « **on:** March 12, 2007, 05:58:40 AM »

Based on the videos we've seen on YouTube, the return of the Aussie Family Feud (as Bert's Family Feud) includes a Fast Money round in which a family can win up to $100,000 -- give or take $70,000 U.S. -- depending on the top answers given.

Now we all know the Fast Money payout on our Family Feud has went from $5,000 to $10,000 to now $20,000, but the $5/point if nobody reached 200 has been around since DAY ONE!!!!! And with the current version switching syndicators this fall from Tribune to Debmar-Mercury, I think the payout structure needs an overhaul.

We have suggested an increase to $10/point, but as for the top prize, here's what I'm thinking: take a note from BFF and make it this way:

1 top answer: $20,000
2 top answers: $25,000
3 top answers: $30,000
4 top answers: $40,000
5 top answers: $50,000 (I was originally going to say $100,000, but Fremantle likes to save their money)

Then again, the first contestant trying to get all of the top answers in one try before the second does can be tough (except for that one time on the Combs version). But who knows?

Jonathan Allen

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2007, 09:11:18 AM »

[quote name=\'johnnya2k3\' post=\'147845\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 03:58 AM\']
Now we all know the Fast Money payout on our Family Feud has went from $5,000 to $10,000 to now $20,000, but the $5/point if nobody reached 200 has been around since DAY ONE!!!!! And with the current version switching syndicators this fall from Tribune to Debmar-Mercury, I think the payout structure needs an overhaul.
[/quote]
Nah.

tomobrien · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2007, 09:39:19 AM »

Oooh, may I be the first?

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3211/matmonbag2ec0.gif

TimK2003 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2007, 09:52:59 AM »

[quote name=\'tomobrien\' post=\'147850\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 09:39 AM\']
Oooh, may I be the first?

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3211/matmonbag2ec0.gif
[/quote]

Okay, you beat me to the punch! Seeing an oft-quoted Lemonism on a Monday morning is fine, but seeing MATTHEW LESKO staring me in the face first thing on a Monday Morning!?!? Grab me the Tums-EX AND the Pepto.

clemon79 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2007, 11:36:09 AM »

[quote name=\'johnnya2k3\' post=\'147845\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 02:58 AM\']
And with the current version switching syndicators this fall from Tribune to Debmar-Mercury, I think the payout structure needs an overhaul.
[/quote]
What does A have to do with B?

Or was this another attempt to try to impress people with obscure knowledge?

(You failed.)

BrandonFG · « **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2007, 11:49:30 AM »

[quote name=\'johnnya2k3\' post=\'147845\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 05:58 AM\']
Now we all know the Fast Money payout on our Family Feud has went from $5,000 to $10,000 to now $20,000, but the $5/point if nobody reached 200 has been around since DAY ONE!!!!! And with the current version switching syndicators this fall from Tribune to Debmar-Mercury, I think the payout structure needs an overhaul.
[/quote]
What is it with some of you thinking increasing the grand prize on a game show makes it more enjoyable? I think $20,000 is absolutely fine, and right on par with what the show offered in the past for its returning champions.

$5000 in 1976 is about $18,000 now.
$5000 in 1985 is about $9,300+.
$10,000 in 1988 is only $17,000+. Got that?

For the nighttime version, $10,000 in 1977 is about $34,000, but since that show didn't have returning champions, it's kind of a moot point. Is that enough reasons as to why your idea ~~sucks~~ falls flat on its face?

I wish some of you would stop trying to give away money that doesn't belong to you, and would just enjoy the damn show for what it is. Family Feud does not need to give away six figures per show, regardless of what the Aussies do. The other syndicated game shows offer enough money, and in Wheel's case, too much. I'd like to see at least ONE game show still offer a moderate amount of money. As long as the contestants are happy with their loot, I'm happy.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2007, 12:36:29 PM »

I think in some cases, bigger payoffs can attract better and more varied contestants, thus making the shows more watchable to me. I cannot bear to watch something like the current Chain Reaction where the contestants aren't really into the game and don't care about playing it well.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2007, 12:36:46 PM »

Why bother? I don't think Feud's ratings improved at all when they upped it to $20,000 for a win.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2007, 12:50:39 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'147863\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 12:36 PM\']
Why bother? I don't think Feud's ratings improved at all when they upped it to $20,000 for a win.
[/quote]
I don't think it was immediate, but the ratings have gone up a bit since then (but have fluctuated a bit). It's not getting Wheel or Jeopardy! (or hell, even Millionaire) numbers, but it's remained respectable.

clemon79 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2007, 01:08:18 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'147862\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 09:36 AM\']
I think in some cases, bigger payoffs can attract better and more varied contestants, thus making the shows more watchable to me. I cannot bear to watch something like the current Chain Reaction where the contestants aren't really into the game and don't care about playing it well.
[/quote]
But then, that begs the question: would those better and more varied contestants be chosen anyhow?

Based on what we're seen the CR people cast, the answer to that is no.

TLEberle · « **Reply #10 on:** March 12, 2007, 01:11:32 PM »

[quote name=\'johnnya2k3\' post=\'147845\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 02:58 AM\']1 top answer: $20,000
2 top answers: $25,000
3 top answers: $30,000
4 top answers: $40,000
5 top answers: $50,000[/quote]In your mad rush to make silly and unnecessary changes to a format that doesn't need them, you forgot one thing: teams that get none, one or two right answers would win less than $20,000. Where are you saving money here? You're suggesting $20,000 for any team, again, with no concept of a prize budget.

So I don't know why I should bother going on, except to say that if you're going to change the prize budget, Pat O'Brien should immediately inherit the hosting position.

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147857\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 08:49 AM\']What is it with some of you thinking increasing the grand prize on a game show makes it more enjoyable?[/quote] Those people are excited by seeing people winning loads of money for doing nothing, and it's not their money being spent.

Quote

I wish some of you would stop trying to give away money that doesn't belong to you, and would just enjoy the damn show for what it is.

Personally, I would like to see that enforced as an Eligibility Requirement.

It is clear that there is a difference between the people who have put rational thought into changing the prizes, and those who are bouncing up and down in their chairs at the sight of "$100,000."

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'147862\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 09:36 AM\']I think in some cases, bigger payoffs can attract better and more varied contestants, thus making the shows more watchable to me. [/quote]If you believe that, it's your dime, but I don't think people will try out for the Feud just because they might have an outside shot at $100,000 on every show. If the show wanted "better and more varied contestants," they would have contestant searches in other cities. Do they still do that sort of thing?

bandit_bobby · « **Reply #11 on:** March 12, 2007, 01:35:19 PM »

I would like to see the payoff structure changed like this:

The families play for $10 a point in the maingame, with $3,000 winning the game. Unlike previous versions, only the winning family keeps their money.

Each day, the two families start out with $10,000 in their Fast Money Jackpot. For each round they win outside of Sudden Death, $10,000 is added to the amount that they could play for in Fast Money if they win the game. Thus:

Winning the game via Sudden Death only: $10,000
Winning 1 round: $20,000
Winning 2 rounds: $30,000
Winning 3 rounds: $40,000
Winning all 4 rounds: $50,000

But should the family win the game with only the first three rounds, they play Fast Money for $100,000.
Fast Money is the same is normal- win, get your day's jackpot; otherwise, nothing extra.

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #12 on:** March 12, 2007, 01:44:29 PM »

[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'147869\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 01:35 PM\']
I would like to see the payoff structure changed like this:

<snip>
[/quote]

Why?

itiparanoid13 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 12, 2007, 01:44:52 PM »

*sigh* Nothing is wrong with the payouts for the millionth time. The only thing I'd ever do is increase the dollar/point thing to $10, and that's just because $5 a point split between 5 people isn't lighting a fire under anymore anymore. But that's not even needed. It's fine as it is. Leave it alone.

CJBojangles · « **Reply #14 on:** March 12, 2007, 01:53:00 PM »

[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'147869\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 12:35 PM\']
Winning the game via Sudden Death only: $10,000
[/quote]
This is impossible unless they pick a survey in which all 100 people selected the top answer, thus the round being worth 300 in itself. I've yet to see that happen.

I always liked the ol' Bullseye game. Not Bankroll, but Bullseye. Burt's version even adapted it. Why not just bring it back, start each bank with $10,000, that way each family has a possibility of playing for $25,000.