Author Topic: Monty Hall says... (Read 12854 times)

clemon79 · « **Reply #45 on:** March 10, 2009, 01:48:21 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'210003\' date=\'Mar 10 2009, 10:06 AM\']
Overestimating.[/quote]
Overestimating, yes, thank you. Time change is still screwing with me.

TimK2003 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 10, 2009, 07:43:28 PM »

[quote name=\'dazztardly\' post=\'209998\' date=\'Mar 10 2009, 11:23 AM\']
I think the quality of the last LMaD series suffered, mainly in part to the network's creative staff...ala Lin Bolen with Jackpot in the 70's. Hopefully there will be less of those issues, should the show return.
[/quote]

Isn't gold neck-bling and permed hair on hosts still "in" in the land of Oz???

chris319 · « **Reply #47 on:** March 10, 2009, 10:51:33 PM »

A zonk in the Big Deal? It would seriously cut down on contestants willing to take the risk.

The last thing you want on a merchandise show is contestants who come across as needy. You don't want someone who "needs" a color TV or refrigerator and shows it. You don't want a contestant who will be disappointed and sulk if they don't win a car, for example, and who will jump up and down with glee after winning their spa or their living room group.

<story time>
Once in a rare while they would hold Card Sharks auditions outside my office door, and the contestant coordinator used to drum the message into them with a big mallet that if you came across as needy, as really needing the prize money, you could kiss your ass goodbye -- they didn't want you. They didn't want and actively screened out any contestant with a trace of pathos or neediness to them. They favored "greed" over "need". "All of it -- HIGHER!"

Bob Barker used to get letters at the office addressed to "Bob Barker, Hollywood, California" (credit the post office for sending them to the G-T offices). The basic message was always "Dear Bob Barker, please send me a refrigerator". They were invariably accompanied by a tale of woe worthy of Queen for a Day -- their mother was elderly and ailing and they couldn't work and squeaked by on disability, etc. You didn't have to read too many of them to see the pattern. Barker never saw the letters, and I'm not sure if they even replied to them. But that's who's out there.
</story time>

calliaume · « **Reply #48 on:** March 11, 2009, 10:27:45 AM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'210053\' date=\'Mar 10 2009, 09:51 PM\']
The last thing you want on a merchandise show is contestants who come across as needy. You don't want someone who "needs" a color TV or refrigerator and shows it. You don't want a contestant who will be disappointed and sulk if they don't win a car, for example, and who will jump up and down with glee after winning their spa or their living room group.
[/quote]
This makes sense. But most of the appliances given away in the 1970s were probably significant upgrades on what they had. A brand-new frost-free side-by-side Kenmore with built-in water and ice cube dispenser looked a lot better than that Norge you had to defrost with a ice pick and a blow dryer. So, people didn't necessarily need a new refrigerator, but the one they just won would be so much better.

I would say now, however, that the appliances aren't significant upgrades -- so there may be more of a "so what?" factor than there was in 1970. And, in order to avoid that, they'll have to be a little more creative -- like an elliptical trainer instead of a washer/dryer. (A year's worth of a cell phone plan would also be a good low-price gift.)

Of course, I haven't watched Price start to finish in so long that I have no idea how they deal with these issues, so I may be talking out of my derriere.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #49 on:** March 11, 2009, 11:05:10 AM »

[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'210089\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:27 AM\']I would say now, however, that the appliances aren't significant upgrades [/quote]Here's a picture of a refrigerator I've used in Palace before; comes complete with a flat-screen TV and recipe center...retails for about $3500.

Not bad...

chris319 · « **Reply #50 on:** March 11, 2009, 11:56:06 AM »

Quote

the appliances aren't significant upgrades -- so there may be more of a "so what?" factor than there was in 1970. And, in order to avoid that, they'll have to be a little more creative -- like an elliptical trainer instead of a washer/dryer.

Well, TPIR has six One Bids and eight acts per day, or 30 and 40 per week respectively, and they have to give away something, so bring in the appliances. Plus, back in the day, you had Amana, Maytag, Whirlpool, Frigidaire, etc. all wanting exposure on game shows. It was cheap advertising for them. Of course that era is over. Temptation gave away some fancy prizes and no one cared.

Cell phone time isn't visual, as is a recliner or a spa.

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #51 on:** March 11, 2009, 12:20:09 PM »

Quote

Bouncing the show after only three telecasts didn't help matters much, either. More than a few shows which became ultra-hits (game shows and otherwise) would have been less than footnotes if not given a chance.......among them: Cheers and M*A*S*H.

Exactly. That's one point I was trying to make in my Game Shows of 1975 thread from last week...when a show has come and gone from the daytime schedule in 10 weeks or less (as so many of them were that year), how can it be expected to find an audience?

tpirfan28 · « **Reply #52 on:** March 11, 2009, 12:37:03 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'210092\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 11:56 AM\']
Cell phone time isn't visual, as is a recliner or a spa.
[/quote]
TPIR has been throwing out there phones and plans together (namely the iPhone).

clemon79 · « **Reply #53 on:** March 11, 2009, 01:17:43 PM »

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'210098\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:37 AM\']
TPIR has been throwing out there phones and plans together (namely the iPhone).[/quote]
Are they? Last I saw 'em (one of Drew's first shows, which shows you how often I watch TPiR anymore), the prize was just "two iPhones." Period. Easiest $500 I ever would have made.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #54 on:** March 11, 2009, 02:02:44 PM »

Yes. And in something of a "gotcha!" they include these extravagant plans that push the total prize package into the few thousands.

-Jason

clemon79 · « **Reply #55 on:** March 11, 2009, 02:27:46 PM »

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'210107\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 11:02 AM\']
Yes. And in something of a "gotcha!" they include these extravagant plans that push the total prize package into the few thousands.[/quote]
Hell, at a minimum of seventy-five bones a month before taxes (if you want any text messaging at all, and for most people who text with any sort of regularity 200 a month is woefully inadequate), they don't have to be all that extravagant to do that, especially if it's more than one phone.

/this is why I don't have an iPhone

chris319 · « **Reply #56 on:** March 11, 2009, 02:53:09 PM »

Quote

You don't want a contestant who will be disappointed and sulk if they don't win a car, for example, and who will jump up and down with glee after winning their spa or their living room group.

Poorly written sentence. You DO want a contestant who will jump up and down over a spa or living room group.

"All of it -- HIGHER!"

calliaume · « **Reply #57 on:** March 11, 2009, 03:51:22 PM »

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'210097\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 11:20 AM\']

Quote

Bouncing the show after only three telecasts didn't help matters much, either. More than a few shows which became ultra-hits (game shows and otherwise) would have been less than footnotes if not given a chance.......among them: Cheers and M*A*S*H.

Exactly. That's one point I was trying to make in my Game Shows of 1975 thread from last week...when a show has come and gone from the daytime schedule in 10 weeks or less (as so many of them were that year), how can it be expected to find an audience?
[/quote]
Off topic, but I think it's easier to tell with game shows if something's going to work or if it isn't after seeing the first week or two of shows. If a format's bad, it's easier just to try something new than tinker on the fly. Soaps are different; you can get rid of characters and add new ones quickly.

Of the 15 game shows that debuted in 1975, only one had a keeper format, and there were maybe two others that I would watch regularly beyond that. The other 12 ranged from somewhat bad to dreadful. (Now, for 20 points, which shows am I talking about?)

BrandonFG · « **Reply #58 on:** March 11, 2009, 04:09:58 PM »

[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'210118\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 03:51 PM\']
Of the 15 game shows that debuted in 1975, only one had a keeper format, and there were maybe two others that I would watch regularly beyond that. The other 12 ranged from somewhat bad to dreadful. (Now, for 20 points, which shows am I talking about?)
[/quote]
I will say the keeper was "Cross-Wits", I'll guess that of the two others, one was "Wheel", and the other maybe something short-lived..."3 for the Money"?

calliaume · « **Reply #59 on:** March 11, 2009, 06:50:09 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'210119\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 03:09 PM\']
[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'210118\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 03:51 PM\']
Of the 15 game shows that debuted in 1975, only one had a keeper format, and there were maybe two others that I would watch regularly beyond that. The other 12 ranged from somewhat bad to dreadful. (Now, for 20 points, which shows am I talking about?)
[/quote]
I will say the keeper was "Cross-Wits", I'll guess that of the two others, one was "Wheel", and the other maybe something short-lived..."3 for the Money"?
[/quote]
Switch Cross-Wits and Wheel (how could it not be a keeper?).

Seriously, anyone who's seen Give 'n' Take or Magnificent Marble Machine once can rest assured: it didn't get any better.