Taking prizes back?

[BrandonFG]

Yes, agreed 100%. It annoyed me on all the Endemol shows, and it annoys me here, right along with the constant cheering over everything. In the old days, they\'d get reactions of the rooting section, and it was an occasional thing, i.e. if someone won a car or a large haul in Plinko.

 

Here, it seems like an obligatory thing to break the monotony because they feel showing the winner celebrating for 10 seconds is too awkward or boring. It looked just fine for however many years.

[TLEberle]

Honestly, I\'d say a little of Scott and Chris\' explanations. In 1974, your average contestant was Helen Housewife, who could really use that Amana range/microwave/dishwasher. Fast forward 25 years and the average contestant is Charlie Co-Ed, who has no use for the appliances, but loves sneaking in a good \"420\" bid for lulz.

I think Bob\'s appearance in Happy Gilmore played a part in the youth appeal, and man cannot live on diabeetus testing kits alone.

This may or may not be a thing, but I know I was watching TPIR during my teens because game shows weren\'t there in daytime and it was that or nothing if you\'re home sick or on vacation. The kids who watched the show as youth stayed with it, and the show has become a cultural touchstone. Even my Dad, who was nine years old when Bill Cullen ushered the auctions, knows something about the show.

[goongas]

I went to a taping two years ago and was told the same story, but I think the contestant hadn\'t played the game yet.  When they saw the contestant\'s reaction, they immediately stopped tape.  Since it was two years ago, I could be wrong in my recollection.

[cmjb13]

From an S&P legal standpoint, can a prize be taken away if the desired reaction is not produced by the contestant?

[clemon79]

From an S&P legal standpoint, can a prize be taken away if the desired reaction is not produced by the contestant?

 

Until the contestant signs the paperwork, legally, the prize isn\'t their\'s yet. So I suspect if they choose not to use the segment they can do whatever the hell they want.

[JasonA1]

Generally speaking, S&P is there to make sure a show adheres to its own rules. If their rules account for this situation, they\'re fine.

 

-Jason

[WarioBarker]

I went to a taping two years ago and was told the same story, but I think the contestant hadn't played the game yet. When they saw the contestant's reaction, they immediately stopped tape.

I really don't think such a situation would ever actually happen -- they may say it will/has, but no producer worth their salt would say "You didn't react to that car like we expected you to, so you're not playing the associated game. Wayne, find someone who will actually give us what we want."

...I hope.

[goongas]

If I won a prize on a game show and followed the rules of the game and didn\'t get the said prize, I would sue them in a heartbeat, whatever their rules say.  That is fraud.  And in this day of social media, the story would leak out and make the show look foolish. When Jeopardy! and Wheel rule against contestants for mispronouncing or misspelling words (rightly so), it makes CNN.com.

[TLEberle]

When Jeopardy! and Wheel rule against contestants for mispronouncing or misspelling words (rightly so), it makes CNN.com.

I think this has more to do with the huge size of the news hole that has to be filled than whether or not it is newsworthy that something happened on a game show.

[clemon79]

If I won a prize on a game show and followed the rules of the game and didn\'t get the said prize, I would sue them in a heartbeat, whatever their rules say.

And you would lose. You realize you signed away your right to do this when you agreed to appear on the show, yes?

 

No, of course you don\'t.

 

the story would leak out and make the show look foolish.

 

This, on the other hand, is what keeps the practice from becoming widespread. You can\'t have a show if you don\'t have contestants because word\'s gotten out that you\'re stiffing people on the prizes.

[Denials]

I was at a taping a year ago and heard the same story, although I also remember it being told as \"contestant did not look/sound excited enough when prize was shown, so we stopped tape and got another contestant who was excited to play for said prize.\"

 

I must have been excited enough since I was picked as a contestant.  It was a close call I think because my wife and I were reseated several times prior to taping.  I got pretty excited when they told my wife and me to sit in a specific order.

 

The whole experience made me wonder if the producers review the photos from the people who purchase the $20 photo deal.  I got very lucky and got a great shot of me jumping in the air and looking excited - I wonder if it changed the producers\' minds.  The whole reseating at the last moment made me wonder.  For those in the biz - is this possible?

[goongas]

I was on Million Second Quiz.  I read the 20-25 pages of rules.  They made it clear that if you were to sue them, you had to use arbitration.  I have also read other official rules of game shows, so I am familiar with the language that basically says you are out of luck.


I am fully aware that shows say you can\'t sue them, and that the producer\'s ruling is final.  But if fraudulent activity has occurred, their contact is unenforceable.  I am talking about egregious behavior, like saying 2 + 2 = 3 in base 10 mathematics, not the misspelling of a Lincoln document that changes the pronunciation of a word.


In terms of LMAD, the main decision making is done I think is when you give the one minute spiel about yourself.  I saw the producer roll her eyes when I was talking so I knew I was dead on the spot.

[clemon79]

I am fully aware that shows say you can\'t sue them, and that the producer\'s ruling is final. But if fraudulent activity has occurred, their contact is unenforceable.

Sure, if it\'s fraudulent with regard to any promises made in said contract. I strongly suspect they have language in there to cover themselves.

[That Don Guy]

I have seen two different versions of \"what happens if an episode doesn\'t air?\" - both involving the Fox network.

 

On the one hand, when The Rich List aired, the first episode included \"returning champions\", and not much money was won; the show was cancelled after that episode, and the other episodes never aired (on Fox, GSN, or otherwise).  Reportedly, a number of teams won six-figure amounts, but the contracts they signed said that if the episodes they are on do not air, then they do not get the money.  This did not make any major news sources that I know of.

 

On the other hand, the contestants in the Our Little Genius scandal were paid the amounts won on the two unaired episodes.

[PYLdude]

I have seen two different versions of \"what happens if an episode doesn\'t air?\" - both involving the Fox network.

 

On the one hand, when The Rich List aired, the first episode included \"returning champions\", and not much money was won; the show was cancelled after that episode, and the other episodes never aired (on Fox, GSN, or otherwise).  Reportedly, a number of teams won six-figure amounts, but the contracts they signed said that if the episodes they are on do not air, then they do not get the money.  This did not make any major news sources that I know of.

 

On the other hand, the contestants in the Our Little Genius scandal were paid the amounts won on the two unaired episodes.

I think you\'d have to consider those different circumstances, because in the first case the episodes didn\'t air due to cancellation while in the second there may have been fraud involved if the shows made it to air.