Does It Need To Pay Out To Sell?

[Jeremy Nelson]

I've been here for years now, and it seems like the general consesnsus is that, for the most part, a game and its payout are separate entities. You don't need a large payout to have a good game show, and most crappy game shows with large payouts still come off as crappy game shows.

Looking at today's market- could a game show with a fairly low payout be successful on network tv or syndication (or even primetime)? Cable game shows have proven for years that it can work on that medium (Smush, Remote Control, Pyramid, Win Ben Stein's Money, Idiot Savants), but I haven't seen much otherwise.

Thoughts?

[Kevin Prather]

Looking at today's market- could a game show with a fairly low payout be successful on network tv or syndication (or even primetime)? Cable game shows have proven for years that it can work on that medium (Smush, Remote Control, Pyramid, Win Ben Stein's Money, Idiot Savants), but I haven't seen much otherwise.

How many of those shows were around before WWTBaM? All of them except for Pyramid? And even that had a quote-unquote $100,000 payout.

I'd LIKE to believe it could happen, but there's not a lot of evidence suggesting it could.

[beatlefreak84]

While I definitely agree that simply making a show worth "Mo Money" is not going to make it any better if it was a crappy game to begin with, I'm always reminded of a scene from the movie Quiz Show, where Martin Scorcese is talking to Dick Goodwin about Geritol's "involvement" in the scandal:  I don't remember the exact wording, but he says that this campaign is pointless because the big money quiz shows will come back.  Why fix them?  Just make the questions easier.  After all, people didn't tune in to see some "dazzling display of intellect; they just wanted to watch the money."

Unless the game is already a proven entity, like Family Feud, or is a dating game show, like Baggage, then, yes; I do think it needs to modestly pay out to sell.  What do I mean by "modest"?  Enough to make people ooh and ahh when someone wins, but not be such a huge amount that it dwarfs the game and makes winning any other amount seem like a loss.  Whether this means money, a car, and/or a trip is in the eye of the beholder.  If the stakes don't make someone fantasize about what they'd do with the winnings (heck, I'd fantasize about what I'd do if I won $10,000 on Pyramid), I think the show does lose a lot of appeal with an average viewer.  Game shows have become synonymous with fantastic prizes, and ignoring that could spell disaster, except maybe in a niche market like cable, like Jeremy said.

/really enjoy British Countdown, though
//I want that teapot...

Anthony

[chris319]

Ask yourself these questions: How many years was What's My Line? on the air and what was its top prize? How many years was Million Dollar Chance of a Lifetime on the air and what was its top prize? I rest my case.

So much for the idea of Million Dollar Mindreaders.

[Matt Ottinger]

We can point to a great many games that failed despite their huge prizes.  I think it's a lot harder to point to any games that failed specifically because their prizes weren't large enough.

The thing is, these days, the people who are actually buying the games, the networks themselves, don't seem to understand this.  Therefore, the answer to "Does it need to pay out to sell?" is, unfortunately, yes.  Networks aren't interested in a Brit-style fantastic game (Countdown, Pointless, Only Connect, on and on) without a huge prize to wrap around it.  So we don't even get to find out whether they might work or not.

[SuperMatch93]

A new game show needs to be unique more than it needs high payoffs, such as Cash Cab.

[Dbacksfan12]

Street Smarts comes to mind as a relatively recent show that didn't pay out much.

[jjman920]

Networks aren't interested in a Brit-style fantastic game (Countdown, Pointless, Only Connect, on and on) without a huge prize to wrap around it.  So we don't even get to find out whether they might work or not.

I don't think networks are really interested in Brit-style games at all. They're just interested in what pops into their head and if it happens to be British, okay. It would be nice to see if The Cube would work over here when it is actually played in a cube instead of a flat circle.

It's also about translating the show well over here. I don't know if WWTBAM had that many changes when it came over here and it was a success. However, most of the times when I see British imports, the folks in charge felt some need to make it more American and change up things that really don't seem necessary and it's off the air in a year.

There are rare exceptions of course, I think a What's My Line? or To Tell The Truth could work today, but people need to be drawn into primetime and the money seems to do it.

[chris319]

The thing is, these days, the people who are actually buying the games, the networks themselves, don't seem to understand this.  Therefore, the answer to "Does it need to pay out to sell?" is, unfortunately, yes.  Networks aren't interested in a Brit-style fantastic game (Countdown, Pointless, Only Connect, on and on) without a huge prize to wrap around it.  So we don't even get to find out whether they might work or not.

The O.P. asked two different questions. In the topic title he asked if big cash prizes were needed to sell, presumably to a network or syndicator. In the post he asks about being successful, presumably with an audience. Agreed that buyers (the former), some of whom have no business being involved with game shows, think a million-dollar prize is de rigueur as they try to capture the bygone prime-time success of WWTBAM.

[gameshowcrazy]

This conversation makes me wonder what most people think when a show goes cheaper, such as 1 vs 100.

When the show came on, the money tree made it possible to get a really nice amount, then the tree changed and it made the game cheaper.  then it was retooled for GSN for real cheap.

I didn't expect GSN to put out a huge prize for that show, but that level was really low.

I know that I always get annoyed when the show goes cheapskate, but that alone doesn't make me stop watching.

[Unrealtor]

It's also possible to take a good but relatively light-hearted game and ruin it because playing for a million bucks has to be Serious Business and the jackpot has to be difficult. (See Password, Million Dollar)

[Matt Ottinger]

This conversation makes me wonder what most people think when a show goes cheaper, such as 1 vs 100.

I think that's a fair example.  If people are used to a big payout, and you play the game for less, then you look cheap.  Subtly, that's probably one of the things that hurt the syndicated versions of DoND and The Weakest Link.  Millionaire pretty much still needed to have a $1,000,000 prize, and they've managed to trudge along for years now, dangling it out there as a possibility without actually delivering.

[clemon79]

Millionaire pretty much still needed to have a $1,000,000 prize,

"Would you! Like to be! A millionaire!"

"Hells yes, Regis!"

"Well, guess what."

[aaron sica]

This conversation makes me wonder what most people think when a show goes cheaper, such as 1 vs 100.

This sort of reminds me of when I first started watching "Wheel"....I knew it was on in the daytime but never gave it a passing glance until I got hooked on the nighttime. I laughed at the dollar amounts on the daytime show as compared to nighttime - where the $5,000 at nighttime hooked me, the $2,000 space I could care less about and wasn't really interested in the daytime version.

I also found Weakest Link (syndicated)  less exciting since they went for a fraction of what they went for on the nighttime edition.

[BillCullen1]

The three Goodson-Todman panel classics, WML, IGAS and TTTT were all VERY successful and the payouts were peanuts. Of course this was before things became "million dollar crazy" with game shows. A more modern example would be Win Ben Stein's Money.