Lingo... on a real network?

[NickintheATL]

Since this kind of got lost in the threads today, I thought I would repost it here (with the moderators' permission of course).

It was an expansion in the Lingo bonus round discussion, but I was actually looking for opinions, because I always seem to get ignored in these sorts of things.

Anyway here is the transcript...

----------------------------

Well, how odd I was thinking of how "Lingo" could work as a year-round series, (by that, for those of you who don't know what I mean, 260 or so shows a year, no repeats). So, I'll slighty skew off the point of the post for a second, then I'll comment on the topic of the post...

I always thought Lingo could be worked very good into a continuing series, i.e. returning champions, straddling shows.

The main game could work one of two ways.

1. 2 teams play for a set time limit, anwhere from 5-8 minutes (I have a feeling seven minutes would work fine), payouts (yes, payouts) are $50 for a correct word, and $100 for a Lingo. Team ahead when time expires wins and are champs. Losing team does get the money won. If this format were to be used, I'd probably put in only one or two question mark balls, three would be way too much for this simple of a game.

2. Best two out of three lingos, same payouts as suggestion #1, but this one could have the three question mark balls. No time limit here.

Simple enough, I'm more inclined to use suggestion #1 because of it's simplicity.

Bonus Lingo... now here is where I have a grappling debate...

I kinda liked the "No Lingo" format of the original US version, and think it might work again. I also like the current format in use also, and some valid points have been brought up as to the feasbility of the payouts.

I am inclined to go with the current format, but as I think about it, I think this could work, use the "No Lingo" format, but do it like this, have a possiblity to win 5 times.

1st win: $500
2nd win: $1,000
3rd win: $5,000
4th win: $10,000
5th win: $25,000

Yes, I know, that's high stakes, but, if you were to go with the Bonus Lingo format, I'd leave it the same, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[tommycharles]

[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'Dec 28 2003, 12:49 AM\'] Since this kind of got lost in the threads today, I thought I would repost it here (with the moderators' permission of course).

It was an expansion in the Lingo bonus round discussion, but I was actually looking for opinions, because I always seem to get ignored in these sorts of things.

Anyway here is the transcript...

----------------------------

Well, how odd I was thinking of how "Lingo" could work as a year-round series, (by that, for those of you who don't know what I mean, 260 or so shows a year, no repeats). So, I'll slighty skew off the point of the post for a second, then I'll comment on the topic of the post...

I always thought Lingo could be worked very good into a continuing series, i.e. returning champions, straddling shows.

The main game could work one of two ways.

1. 2 teams play for a set time limit, anwhere from 5-8 minutes (I have a feeling seven minutes would work fine), payouts (yes, payouts) are $50 for a correct word, and $100 for a Lingo. Team ahead when time expires wins and are champs. Losing team does get the money won. If this format were to be used, I'd probably put in only one or two question mark balls, three would be way too much for this simple of a game.

2. Best two out of three lingos, same payouts as suggestion #1, but this one could have the three question mark balls. No time limit here.

Simple enough, I'm more inclined to use suggestion #1 because of it's simplicity.

Bonus Lingo... now here is where I have a grappling debate...

I kinda liked the "No Lingo" format of the original US version, and think it might work again. I also like the current format in use also, and some valid points have been brought up as to the feasbility of the payouts.

I am inclined to go with the current format, but as I think about it, I think this could work, use the "No Lingo" format, but do it like this, have a possiblity to win 5 times.

1st win: $500
2nd win: $1,000
3rd win: $5,000
4th win: $10,000
5th win: $25,000

Yes, I know, that's high stakes, but, if you were to go with the Bonus Lingo format, I'd leave it the same, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! [/quote]
 Definatly use option number two. This whole thing with points for words and lingos and playing to a time limit doesn't sit right with me. You can feasibly win the game never getting a Lingo, and as others here have pointed out, bingo with a time limit is boring.

When was the last time a GS did 260 shows a year, anyhow?

[NickintheATL]

Before ZH gets here, that would have to be Family Feud with Ray Combs, the last daytime game show to leave a broadcast network, leaving TPiR, which started doing summer repeats in the summer of 1981, thus not being on continuous throughout the calendar year.

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Dec 28 2003, 01:35 AM\']
When was the last time a GS did 260 shows a year, anyhow? [/quote]
 The last show to do 52 weeks a year was probably either CBS Combs Feud or Classic Concentration circa early 90s. I think CBS Feud had some occasional reruns. If the Challengers had gotten better ratings, it would have run 52 weeks a year with no repeats, which would have been a first for a syndicated game show. Dick Clark would have missed a couple of weeks of tapings a year and a guest host would have been brought in. As per a 1996 Usenet post by one of the staffers of the show, when the show was pretty much a shoe-in not to be renewed, they did a few weeks of shows without the airdate's date on the monitor, and reran them in the final few weeks of the show's run.

[Jimmy Owen]

I've come to the realization that the networks will again have regular daytime game shows.  The audience has changed.  There are no houswives anymore.

[cmjb13]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Dec 28 2003, 08:33 AM\'] I've come to the realization that the networks will again have regular daytime game shows.  The audience has changed.  There are no houswives anymore. [/quote]
 Will again or will never again?

[Jimmy Owen]

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Dec 28 2003, 10:07 AM\'] [quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Dec 28 2003, 08:33 AM\'] I've come to the realization that the networks will again have regular daytime game shows.  The audience has changed.  There are no houswives anymore. [/quote]
Will again or will never again? [/quote]
 Never again.

[cmjb13]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Dec 28 2003, 08:33 AM\'] I've come to the realization that the networks will again have regular daytime game shows.  The audience has changed.  There are no houswives anymore. [/quote]
 As if women are the sole demographic for game shows?

Game shows weren't created and targeted for housewives, were they?

[dickoon]

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Dec 28 2003, 04:46 PM\'] Game shows weren't created and targeted for housewives, were they? [/quote]
 By no means all of them - but traditionally, to a large extent, many were, yes. Morning and daytime ones especially so. A quick Google for "game show" demographics reveals these facts from 1999 about differences between people who watch game shows and people who do not, which may be of interest.

I'm sure I can recall seeing a chart detailing the audience profiles of various TV channels in the UK; Challenge ?, our game show focused channel, was a remarkable outlier in terms of attracting a considerably lower proportion of ABC1 adult viewers (translation: "wealthiest, highest-disposable-income 50% of viewers") than almost all other channels, and proudly boasted in a past year that they had increased the number of housewives with children watching the channel by 90%.

[Ian Wallis]

As if women are the sole demographic for game shows?

Game shows weren't created and targeted for housewives, were they?

That's what I've found interesting.  I always wondered why certain game shows (especially in the '70s and early '80s) always had way more women contestants than men.  I figured it's probably because most of the people watching were women, so they went with more women contestants (couldn't women also root for men contestants?)

When you look at the biggest fans of the genre (i.e. - us), it's mostly men.

[Jimmy Owen]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Dec 29 2003, 01:45 PM\']

As if women are the sole demographic for game shows?

Game shows weren't created and targeted for housewives, were they?

That's what I've found interesting.  I always wondered why certain game shows (especially in the '70s and early '80s) always had way more women contestants than men.  I figured it's probably because most of the people watching were women, so they went with more women contestants (couldn't women also root for men contestants?)

When you look at the biggest fans of the genre (i.e. - us), it's mostly men. [/quote]
 I thought it was that "it could be you" factor.  Since women were the primary audience, why not make the contestants similar to the audience?  The thought that "average housewives" were winning fantastic appliances and furniture was very appealing to the women watching.  Nowadays, women have to go to work.

[Jay Temple]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 28 2003, 06:52 AM\'] [quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Dec 28 2003, 01:35 AM\']
When was the last time a GS did 260 shows a year, anyhow? [/quote]
The last show to do 52 weeks a year was probably either CBS Combs Feud or Classic Concentration circa early 90s. I think CBS Feud had some occasional reruns. If the Challengers had gotten better ratings, it would have run 52 weeks a year with no repeats, which would have been a first for a syndicated game show. Dick Clark would have missed a couple of weeks of tapings a year and a guest host would have been brought in. As per a 1996 Usenet post by one of the staffers of the show, when the show was pretty much a shoe-in not to be renewed, they did a few weeks of shows without the airdate's date on the monitor, and reran them in the final few weeks of the show's run. [/quote]
 As far as I'm aware, your statement is correct but possibly misleding.  In November they had a Tournament of Champions, with the top nine winners from their nine weeks or so on the air, which did not have any dates on it either, which suggests one of two things:  (1) They were aware of the non-renewal after a VERY short time, or (2) they were already planning to have breaks in production filled in by occasional reruns.

[TonicBH]

Verting back to the original topic...

Yeah, I was thinking a timed game at maybe $100/word and $200/Lingo, maybe do the game in "halves", and add question mark balls to the second half (but don't double the dollar values).

I say we keep Bonus Lingo as-is. Except I'd make it $250 (maybe $500) a ball, win or lose. And maybe we should throw in one red ball to heighten suspense so games don't get anticlimatic, and they truthfully do most of the time. Oh yeah, $10,000 and a nice trip on first draw, $10,000 afterwards.