Author Topic: Should 'Feud' raise jackpot? (Read 668621 times)

tvwxman · « **Reply #15 on:** February 02, 2013, 10:48:02 AM »

Since there are returning champions, they generally already run the shows in order.

This is not true. Put simply in words you might understand, they do not do this.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #16 on:** February 02, 2013, 10:53:20 AM »

People now watch the show for Steve, not prize money or the families. The shows are not run in any particular order. You might as well have Steve say to the champs: \"We\'ll have you back on an upcoming show to defend your championship.\"

tvwxman · « **Reply #17 on:** February 02, 2013, 10:54:58 AM »

I have no problem with them upping the price of a win, even significantly. $50,000 is fine. Given the win ratio of approx one in five shows, a prize budget of $50,000 a week is more than affordable.

I\'m in the minority. a bigger jackpot, to me, does raise interest, excitement, and possibly ratings. A \'too large\' jackpot does not. Give them something that you \'want\' to win...just enough of a life changing amount of money without being silly about it.

I look at the $25,000 Pyramid (Cullen) as an example. In 1974, for many people , that was approximately a year\'s salary - and a helluva reward for winning a game show. Ditto the cash wins for Wheel in the late 80s. There are lots of other examples. Why can\'t you give a team something really nice for their hard work and luck? They certainly can afford it, esp with the revenue they\'re getting for much higher ratings this season.

And yes, $5/point for a loss is absolutely silly in this day and age - especially when split 5 ways.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #18 on:** February 02, 2013, 11:19:32 AM »

If anything, I definitely have no issues with a) increasing the consolation payouts in Fast Money, b) some sort of consolation for the losing family. I hate that Fremantle has an aversion to paying consolation money to contestants...there\'s budget-saving, then there\'s just cheap.

$5 in 1976 is $20 now, but $10 a point is just fine. The idea that a family could go undefeated, not win a single Fast Money round, but go home with a car and less than $5,000 cash is laughable IMO.

BillCullen1 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 02, 2013, 01:04:17 PM »

I just wish they\'d drag Fast Money into, say, the 1990s by increasing the consolation prize from $5 to $10 a point.

This I absolutely agree with. As for the jackpot, maybe raise it by $2,500 each time it\'s not won. Put a limit of $50K on it in case you get a successive number of families that blow chunks in the Fast Money round.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #20 on:** February 02, 2013, 01:13:59 PM »

Make it like J! and get a sponsor like Aleve and give departing families a grand per player just for appearing on the show.

TLEberle · « **Reply #21 on:** February 02, 2013, 02:14:38 PM »

As for the jackpot, maybe raise it by $2,500 each time it\'s not won. Put a limit of $50K on it in case you get a successive number of families that blow chunks in the Fast Money round.

\"Since nobody won Fast Money last time we put $2,500 in the jackpot so that means the family that wins today will play for--oh my chocolate babies!--$22,500!\"

TimK2003 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 02, 2013, 04:59:35 PM »

21st Century \"Family Feud\" is one of the most tight-wadded currently-running shows when it comes to awarding consolation prizes. Front game points should be in dollars with a house minimum of $500 for the losing family, and $10/point for losing in the Fast Money round.

You\'re not giving away Rice-A-Roni nor the home version(s) of the game hand-over-fist anymore, so at least guarantee each player $100 for their participation when all is said & done.

tvwxman · « **Reply #23 on:** February 02, 2013, 05:58:08 PM »

Does anyone know if Feud pays for travel anymore? Wheel and Jep do not.

To me, this makes a huge diff in determining what constitutes a \'consolation prize\' for participating.

PYLdude · « **Reply #24 on:** February 02, 2013, 06:27:53 PM »

21st Century \"Family Feud\" is one of the most tight-wadded currently-running shows when it comes to awarding consolation prizes. Front game points should be in dollars with a house minimum of $500 for the losing family, and $10/point for losing in the Fast Money round.

You\'re not giving away Rice-A-Roni nor the home version(s) of the game hand-over-fist anymore, so at least guarantee each player $100 for their participation when all is said & done.

Then doesn\'t it make more sense to leave the front game points alone? \"Oh, family A wins with $3XX, but family B you get $500 for coming.\" I know you\'ll make it up in Fast Money but it just seems counterproductive and would lead to bad TV.

Now, onto WeatherMatt\'s question- I work with someone who went on Feud when it was in Orlando, and from what he told me they did pay for everyone to come out. So as far as I know they did at one point but I don\'t know if, once production moved to the ATL, that stayed (although I\'d assume yes).

WarioBarker · « **Reply #25 on:** February 02, 2013, 07:39:48 PM »

Since there are returning champions, they generally already run the shows in order.

This is not true. Put simply in words you might understand, they do not do this.

See also: Temptation, US. Holy crap did that mess up -- references to the next show were always, always \"next time\" and they didn\'t get around to the first tapings until March 2008. And even if a champ left, there was still the growing-to-$5,000 Instant Cash.

...But Jeopardy! has zero problem airing in order and announcing when champs will take time off due to an upcoming special week. It really isn\'t hard to schedule episodes to air in order, unless you deliberately tape out of order (Wheel).

(On the other hand, Crosswords didn\'t have returning champs and paid dearly by playing format hopscotch.)

Then doesn\'t it make more sense to leave the front game points alone? \"Oh, family A wins with $3XX, but family B you get $500 for coming.\" I know you\'ll make it up in Fast Money but it just seems counterproductive and would lead to bad TV.

Hence my suggestion to give losing families $1,000 instead. The winners of a particular episode then get that when they lose.

Another idea: get rid of the championship limits. Really, there\'s no reason for it to be there anymore...and for that matter, there\'s no reason to award a car to five people who probably live in different homes.

PYLdude · « **Reply #26 on:** February 02, 2013, 08:05:20 PM »

Quote
See also: Temptation, US. Holy crap did that mess up -- references to the next show were always, always \"next time\" and they didn\'t get around to the first tapings until March 2008. And even if a champ left, there was still the growing-to-$5,000 Instant Cash.

And the Instant Cash still grew on its predecessor, the actual Sale of the Century, no matter what. Not a good point to argue with.

Quote
...But Jeopardy! has zero problem airing in order and announcing when champs will take time off due to an upcoming special week. It really isn\'t hard to schedule episodes to air in order, unless you deliberately tape out of order (Wheel).

No there isn\'t but Jeopardy! is a completely different beast.

Quote
(On the other hand, Crosswords didn\'t have returning champs and paid dearly by playing format hopscotch.)

I\'m willing to bet the \"format hopscotch\" thing was about as far from the reason why Crosswords failed as it was that the game mechanics were broken. And I gotta argue against that anyway, because it wasn\'t \"format hopscotch\". It was \"payout hopscotch.\"

Then doesn\'t it make more sense to leave the front game points alone? \"Oh, family A wins with $3XX, but family B you get $500 for coming.\" I know you\'ll make it up in Fast Money but it just seems counterproductive and would lead to bad TV.

Hence my suggestion to give losing families $1,000 instead. The winners of a particular episode then get that when they lose.

[/quote]

Which solves nothing.

Another idea: get rid of the championship limits. Really, there\'s no reason for it to be there anymore...and for that matter, there\'s no reason to award a car to five people who probably live in different homes.

Okay, Dan, then you pay for the family to keep flying back to Atlanta and back so they can disrupt their lives just to stay on Feud.

Most of the time limits are there for a reason, and I\'m willing to bet at least one of those reasons is because people aren\'t able to keep coming back multiple times. Hell, I\'m not really a fan of Jeopardy\'s decision to do that, but it\'s not really as big a deal.

And you are aware of the term \"forfeiture\", right?

J.R. · « **Reply #27 on:** February 02, 2013, 08:07:30 PM »

You do realize who you\'re dealing with, Chris?

PYLdude · « **Reply #28 on:** February 02, 2013, 08:10:05 PM »

You do realize who you\'re dealing with, Chris?

Well aware, don\'t care. Ignoring people like Dan does nothing. You need to talk sense into them.

clemon79 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 02, 2013, 08:13:57 PM »

Well aware, don\'t care. Ignoring people like Dan does nothing. You need to talk sense into them.

I learned years ago that some folks aren\'t worth saving.

But by all means, please continue tilting at this particular windmill all you like.