If Password returned,

[DrJWJustice]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 04:33 PM\']









 [/quote]
 

Then you're ignoring a basic fact of real life, because in the real world, if it's not economically sound, you won't be watching it AT ALL. If you don't think economics weren't part of what killed Povich's Twenty-One, you're just not thinking.

You and I are simply not going to agree.

Let me put my chips on the table, or better yet, throw them in the air for all to see.  Twenty-One didn't last long because it sucked.  People didn't watch it as a result.  Advertizers don't want their spots they pay out the wazoo to buy airing during such shows because if they do, it's the virtual equivalent of taking money and throwing it out the window for the winds to scatter.  I understand this part of your argument perfectly.

No, it doesn't assume that at all

I totally disagree.  Don't forget that I'm an academic, trained (among other things) to examine an argument from every possible perspective.  That means that I sometimes find in an argument a thread of logic or illogic that the original author of a piece of research may not have realized was in his or her work.  I'm sure that you were not consciously thinking about the assumption that I found when you wrote your response.  Nevertheless, I see it there.  Obviously you disagree, but I feel I can make a case for my point that you do have that assumption present.  

1) (90 * 5K) + (30 * 5K) = $600,000 = $200,000 per month.

Now, case (2), no ceiling on the jackpot (for simplicity), and we'll say it's won once every 10 days:

2) (90 * 5K) + (9 * 20K) = $630,000 =  $210,000 per month.

If $10,000 is going to break a TV show in a 90 day period, then that show probably shouldn't have made it past the network bosses in the first place!  We haven't even discusses salaries for the cast & crew, and I really don't want to go there.  I'll make my point simply then:  there's more to it than you're making this out to be!  As I wrote last night, every game show is essentially the producers gambling that someone won't win.  If they do, they have to pay out.  A gamble involves risk.  This is a risk that can be minimized somewhat, and producers are right to do so, but there are an awful lot of variable to take into account, not all of which can be controlled.  

I'm not going to touch the CA Lottery Show.  Texas doesn't have a show along those lines, so I'm not going to speak to that point.  The 'Wintuition' example, I think, better fits the 'near-impossible-to-win' model we discussed earlier in this thread.  Even a trivia buff like Catherine Rahm (of Winning Lines fame) couldn't win the $50,000.  I'd love to have seen what John Carpenter would have done, but we'll never know.

Chris, the bottom line is that you're not going to concede to me, and I'm not going to concede to you.  As a mutual friend of ours said in an IM to me, netiher one of us is wrong.  We have different perspectives on this, and that's cool.  Thanks for the debate on this, but I'm ready to move on to something else.  

G'night, kiddos.  

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 08:58 PM\'] You and I are simply not going to agree. [/quote]
 Yes. If we can't agree on this basic point, the rest of the discussion is moot.

If $10,000 is going to break a TV show in a 90 day period, then that show probably shouldn't have made it past the network bosses in the first place!

That $10,000 difference had not a thing to do with my argument, which is apparently careening past your oh-so-well-trained scrutiny. I was pointing out how much less often a player can win the bonus game and still maintain the same budget when you jack the seed pot up from $10K to $25K. That's fine, like I said, it's moot anyhow.

I'd love to have seen what John Carpenter would have done, but we'll never know.

And it doesn't matter, 'cuz everyone would just bitch that he got an easy stack of questions anyhow.

Thanks for the debate on this, but I'm ready to move on to something else.

My pleasure. If someone reading this learned something, I consider the time well spent.

[DrJWJustice]

I gotta answer these!:

That $10,000 difference had not a thing to do with my argument, which is apparently careening past your oh-so-well-trained scrutiny.

Thanks.  I'll take that as a compliment.  That's not to say that I catch everything.  In our line of work, if you're going to criticize (and we're expected to), we'd better be ready to take it in return.  I've got an article I'm trying to get published that got a great review at a conference but has run into some serious questions in the publication review process.  Oh well.  C'est la vie.

I'd love to have seen what John Carpenter would have done, but we'll never know.

And it doesn't matter, 'cuz everyone would just bitch that he got an easy stack of questions anyhow.

That, and he'd pull a Billy Crystal in the Alphabetics round while he was at it!

[Robert Hutchinson]

This argument has gone to strictly economics. Just as Chris doesn't watch game shows strictly for the prizes awarded, I for one don't watch a show strictly to see if it's economically sound.

Well, here's the problem. Chris (and Brandon and I) were arguing strictly about economics from the get-go. Furthermore, when we say \"bad economics makes for a bad game show\", we don't mean \"I'm watching this show, and I know they can't afford this prize budget, so I don't like it.\" What we mean is \"they can't afford this prize budget, so the show won't last.\"

The reason we think this way is because the vast majority of people who post \"more money for Game Show X would be good\" honestly don't see why every show doesn't bump up its jackpot on a regular basis. A few, of course, are actually willing to back it up with hypothetical positive audience response. And a few, sadly, are expressing the thought \"I like more money rather than less\" as though it were some sort of blinding insight.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 03:44 AM\'] Furthermore, when we say \"bad economics makes for a bad game show\", we don't mean \"I'm watching this show, and I know they can't afford this prize budget, so I don't like it.\" What we mean is \"they can't afford this prize budget, so the show won't last.\"[/quote]

Yes! Preach on! I like a 50K jackpot as much as the next man! I also like my game shows to not get canned in 13 weeks!

A few, of course, are actually willing to back it up with hypothetical positive audience response.

Right, and what I've been trying to show is that the audience response in question needs to be significantly more positive than one might expect, unless you're the Number One syndicated show for umpteen billions of years, can charge so much for a :30 that you're hemmoraging money, and can get away with the occasional 100K payoff as a publicity stunt. (And as we've seen, more of those few people who are spinning onto that 100K card are losing it than winning it.)

Thank you for this, Robert. This summarizes my argument (and, as always, I use the word \"argument\" in the logical sense) PERFECTLY.

[Brandon Brooks]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 05:44 AM\']

This argument has gone to strictly economics. Just as Chris doesn't watch game shows strictly for the prizes awarded, I for one don't watch a show strictly to see if it's economically sound.

Well, here's the problem. Chris (and Brandon and I) were arguing strictly about economics from the get-go. Furthermore, when we say "bad economics makes for a bad game show", we don't mean "I'm watching this show, and I know they can't afford this prize budget, so I don't like it." What we mean is "they can't afford this prize budget, so the show won't last."

The reason we think this way is because the vast majority of people who post "more money for Game Show X would be good" honestly don't see why every show doesn't bump up its jackpot on a regular basis. A few, of course, are actually willing to back it up with hypothetical positive audience response. And a few, sadly, are expressing the thought "I like more money rather than less" as though it were some sort of blinding insight. [/quote]
 Well, the problem I have Robert is... well, nothing.

That's exactly what I wanted to say!

Brandon Brooks

[DrJWJustice]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 05:44 AM\'] The reason we think this way is because the vast majority of people who post "more money for Game Show X would be good" honestly don't see why every show doesn't bump up its jackpot on a regular basis. A few, of course, are actually willing to back it up with hypothetical positive audience response. And a few, sadly, are expressing the thought "I like more money rather than less" as though it were some sort of blinding insight. [/quote]
 If you're reading that last sentence into my postings, then you've misstated my argument, and I'm going to leave that where it is.

Economics is a big factor, I agree, but I've also contended (and still do) that there's more to it than economics.  Frankly, through this discourse I've come to view producing a game show as more of an elaborate gambling exercise than anything else, but even that oversimplifies things.  Truth be told, I don't think there's any single 'right' answer.

[zachhoran]

I mostly agree with Chris L. about not wanting game shows to get canned in 13 weeks, unless its something really bad like SHopper's Casino or CS2001.

[YKW03]

First trip to the new board.... nice digs, folks.

Before i get back to the original topic here, i wanted to make one point in regard to the debate over Password's potential payouts: if the game seems too easy, make the words harder. Or increase the time spent talking with stars and players, reducing the amount of time allotted for actual gameplay. Less time for gameplay equals less time for winning money.

Things like that are what runthroughs exist to work out. I guarantee you, studio execs will have made it sufficiently difficult -- but far from impossible -- to take home the top prize by the time any proposal is ready to air that it will be highly unlikely that the prize budget allocation will be exceeded.

With that out of the way.....

[YKW03]

Can I just say how much I hate the 4K post size limit? I can't? Darn.... oh, well.....



I've had this thing lying around forever; a few timing changes were needed to bring it down to a 19 minute format, but use in a 20, 21 or 22 minute version would require very simple changes.

Open (00:00-00:30) - Announcer introduces two celebs (with some identifying credit) who enter stage and walk to desk set; announcer says \"...and they're here to play 'Password'!\"; announcer introduces host who walks to center of desk set; end music; end applause.

Rules (00:30-01:00) - Host: \"Welcome to Password, the game where a little second-guessing can win big money! The object is for our contestants to guess the password with a little help from their celebrity partners. Our stars give the clues, and our contestants give the answers. Give the right answers, and we give you the money. In round one, we warm up with simple Password: our stars have three seconds to give a clue for each Password, and our contestants have three seconds to respond. Our teams alternate until one gets the Password correct or thirty seconds has passed. Each correct guess is worth $250. [insert name of celebrity 1]'s team won the toss; let's play Password!\"

Basic Password (01:00-04:30)

Outro (04:30-04:45) - Host: \"Time's up! At the end of round one, {insert name of celeb whose team leads]'s team is ahead, but Password Plus is up next, where the stakes are higher and it's still anyone's game. Back with Password Plus in a moment.\"

Break (04:45-06:45)

Tease (06:45-06:50) - Announcer: \"We'll return with Password Plus in one minute.\"

Break (06:50-07:50)

Banter (07:50-09:20) - Host talks with celebs about current projects, celebs introduce contestants; contestants give very short bios.

Rules (09:20-09:40) - Host: \"Time to play Password Plus! If our stars will switch seats\" [celebs swap partners], we'll begin. It's just like Password, but each password is a clue to a larger puzzle. If our contestants can solve that puzzle, they'll win another thousand dollars. Now that our stars are seated, let's play Password Plus! [insert leading contestant's name] was ahead after our first round, so [insert contestant's celeb here] gets the first word.\"

Password Plus 1 (09:40-11:40) - Play same as Basic Password until word solved; host notes $250 win for solving word, gives contestant three seconds to guess puzzle; puzzles have five clues; if puzzle unsolved by contestant with control after fifth clue, other team has three seconds to confer and answer to \"steal\" the puzzle and its money.

Outro (11:40-11:50) - Host: \"We've reached the halfway point in Password Plus with [insert leading celeb's name]'s team in the lead, but there's still plenty of time, and anything can happen! We'll be back for the conclusion of Password Plus and see who plays for as much as $25000 -- or more -- after this.\"

Break (11:40-13:40)

Contestant Plug (13:40-13:50)

Break (13:50-15:50)

Password Plus 2 (15:50-19:20) - Host recaps scores, reminds audience who had control before break, play continues from Super Password 1.

Loser Farewell (19:20-19:50) - Host: \"Time's up in Password Plus! [winner] is ahead with

• dollars, so he/she'll be going on to play Super Password for a chance to multiply that total by ten, or [10x] dollars!!! [loser] won't be going away empty-handed, though, with a total of [y] dollars!!! {winner], decide which star you want to work with, and we'll be back to play Super Password in a moment!!!\"

Break (19:50-21:50)

Tease (21:50-22:00) - Announcer: \"Stay tuned; the big money Super Password is coming up in two minutes!\"

Break (22:00-23:00)

Super Password (23:00-27:00) - Gameplay same as Alphabetics; $500 extra for each word of the ten guessed unless contestants finish the board in ten seconds; running board results in previous winnings being multiplied by ten.

Sponsor Plugs / Credits (27:00-30:00)

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 03:59 PM\'] I mostly agree with Chris L. about not wanting game shows to get canned in 13 weeks, unless its something really bad like SHopper's Casino or CS2001. [/quote]
 What I meant, Zach, is that I don't want a GOOD game show to get canned in 13 weeks because they can't pay the bills.

A BAD game show I can't get rid of fast enough.

[Brandon Brooks]

[quote name=\'YKW03\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 09:09 PM\'] Super Password (23:00-27:00) - Gameplay same as Alphabetics; $500 extra for each word of the ten guessed unless contestants finish the board in ten seconds; running board results in previous winnings being multiplied by ten. [/quote]
 I was following you until this.  Care to explain what you are talking about?

Brandon Brooks

[YKW03]

Ahem.... that should read \"in =sixty= seconds\". Yoi.

[Brandon Brooks]

[quote name=\'YKW03\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 11:07 PM\'] Ahem.... that should read "in =sixty= seconds". Yoi. [/quote]
 What's \"yoi?\"

Anyway, this is extemely problematic for an endgame total.  So if I'm ahead $100, I only get the play the bonus round for $1,000?  Goodbye.

Make it a flat total or a progressive jackpot.

Brandon Brooks

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'YKW03\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 07:09 PM\'] $500 extra for each word of the ten guessed unless contestants finish the board in ten seconds; running board results in previous winnings being multiplied by ten. [/quote]
 That reeks of way too complicated.

On the upside, props for timing out your teases to fit within the time constraits you mentioned. I checked a few and they all timed out to my read speed.