Feud Bullseye Answers

[Card Shark]

Was there ever a point during the Bullseye/Bankroll rounds where there were two answers that tied for #1 in one of the questions? I know that happened in Fast Money often, but can't remember seeing that in Bullseye.

[Steve Gavazzi]

I could certainly be proven wrong, but I'd have to think that if a question had a tie for the #1 answer, they just wouldn't use that question for Bullseye.

[parliboy]

Having no inside knowledge at all, I'd think it would be practical to oversample.  That is, if a survey is for 100 people, then you ask more than 100 in case there are unusable responses.  That way you can drop unusable responses and replace from a reserve.  In the same way, if there were a tie for Bullseye, and I really wanted to use that question, I'd just pull from the reserve, dropping lower responses as I go, until I've broken the tie.  So, no reason to have the scenario op described.

[BrandonFG]

I could certainly be proven wrong, but I'd have to think that if a question had a tie for the #1 answer, they just wouldn't use that question for Bullseye.

I know I’m going off 30-year-old technology but let’s say the tied answers are TV and RADIO. If someone says one or the other, would it be that difficult to simply punch in and program that answer into the monitor?

[JasonA1]

I could certainly be proven wrong, but I'd have to think that if a question had a tie for the #1 answer, they just wouldn't use that question for Bullseye.

I know I’m going off 30-year-old technology but let’s say the tied answers are TV and RADIO. If someone says one or the other, would it be that difficult to simply punch in and program that answer into the monitor?

Probably not (though they haven't reprogrammed the board to do that now in the main game, *coughcough*) but I'm with the group in that it isn't worth all this trouble to bother with a tied question in Bullseye.

-Jason

[clemon79]

I've often thought that the Bullseye round was concocted as a way to use survey content whose response spread wasn't conducive to using either in the main game or Fast Money. Too many qualified answers to use for a main-game survey, or too even of a spread to make it fair Fast Money material, or something that got an OVERWHELMING (like 75+) #1 response and then dribs and drabs for the rest. Since they don't tell you what the number was, it doesn't matter what the number was.

[Card Shark]

It sounds about right to me, Chris. I ran a game at my school a few years ago and sent out surveys that anyone in the student body and faculty could complete. One question was "What kind of car would you like to own". I got so many answers, but in the end, the number one answer was a Tesla. And 6 people said that. So, it ended up as a bullseye quesiton. So, what you said makes perfect sense.

[JasonA1]

I think that was all a side effect of Bullseye answering the question "OMG WHAT DO WE DO TO KEEP FROM BEING CANCELLED?" FWIW, in the leadup to airing the hour-long mid-run Combs pilot, Buzzr posted a screengrab from another test episode in which the game-deciding Bullseye questions were still using the top 3 answers.

-Jason

[TLEberle]

I think that was all a side effect of Bullseye answering the question "OMG WHAT DO WE DO TO KEEP FROM BEING CANCELLED?" FWIW, in the leadup to airing the hour-long mid-run Combs pilot, Buzzr posted a screengrab from another test episode in which the game-deciding Bullseye questions were still using the top 3 answers.

i’m glad you brought this up. How quickly did Feud’s fortunes drop to going from the expansion to one hour, concurrent with the bank building to whoops, we’re out of daytime, then syndicated run expands and it craters to gone completely in 1995? Or was it more of a slow burn?

[That Don Guy]

Speaking of ties on Feud...was there ever a time in the main game when the #1 and #2 answers had the same score? I remember what I assume was the first time a faceoff had two answers with the same score, and Richard said that the higher answer on the board had control, but then Howard corrected him - in a tie, whoever buzzed in first did. I just wonder that, if the top two answers were tied and the #2 was revealed first, would they then ask the other contestant in the faceoff for an answer, since they wouldn't if the #1 had been revealed, but (presumably) whoever gave the #2 answer would be in control no matter what happened?

[jage]

Easiest thing to do is to just put questions with tie #1 answers into fast money. Though these days the writing for questions in the main game vs. fast money is often quite different.

[JasonA1]

i’m glad you brought this up. How quickly did Feud’s fortunes drop to going from the expansion to one hour, concurrent with the bank building to whoops, we’re out of daytime, then syndicated run expands and it craters to gone completely in 1995? Or was it more of a slow burn?

The quick recap of the daytime ratings for Feud: when slotted at 10 AM, it outperformed most things during that hour on CBS and NBC (ABC had ceded the time to the affiliates already). It took a while for Feud to better Classic Concentration's numbers at 10:30, but it eventually did. Feud's partners during that time -- Card Sharks, Now You See It and Wheel of Fortune -- couldn't keep up. (Though it bears mentioning, ratings for everything aren't what they were in the mid-'80s.)

In 1991, Wheel moved back to NBC, and Feud moved to 10:30 to make room for a Barbara DeAngelis talk show at 10 (discussed here in a tandem article with NBC's "A Closer Look"). In her brief time on the air, Barbara averaged less than a 10 share, while Wheel won the slot. For one month after she was gone, CBS tried airing celebrity episodes of Feud at 10, and they did respectable numbers. I never knew that. When CBS put Designing Women reruns in that slot, they eventually beat Wheel, but the clearances kept slipping. Feud was clearly better for the network at 10 than it was with an unrelated lead-in. The logic to go to an hour was sound, especially if anyone brought up the earlier back-to-back episode experiment.

At the beginning, clearances for the first half hour and second half hour of Family Feud Challenge were 65% and 76% respectively. By the end, 52 (!!) and 65. So I think Feud's expansion may have worked...IF more affiliates carried the whole thing. Instead, my guess is that it continued the pattern of 10 AM being a crater, though now filled with local offerings instead of national ones.

-Jason

[TimK2003]

Keep in mind, there were some syndicated offerings that were more profitable and in demand than Feud in the 10/9 Central slot.  In the early 90s, Regis and Kathie Lee was found on most ABC affiliates, Phil Donahue was usually a morning staple, and some markets carried Oprah and Sally Jessy in the mid/late mornings as well.  I'm sure ratings were better for them than Feud or whatever shows NBC's affiliates could pre-empt on their end at the time.

[Jeremy Nelson]

I could certainly be proven wrong, but I'd have to think that if a question had a tie for the #1 answer, they just wouldn't use that question for Bullseye.

I know I’m going off 30-year-old technology but let’s say the tied answers are TV and RADIO. If someone says one or the other, would it be that difficult to simply punch in and program that answer into the monitor?

I've got to think it isn't difficult, but I'd have to imagine that it's WAAAAY easier to just plug in five answers and let them run ala PowerPoint slides instead of needing to run a decision tree.

IIRC, there were some slashed answers every now and then.