1976 Pyramid Story

[Eric Paddon]

I did not want to post this in the audio section because I don't have the audio to share but Phil Gries Archival TV Audio site which lists a large number of audio recordings of lost game shows of the 50s to 70s has an interesting description for one program that I had never seen before and that I thought was worth sharing because it sheds some light on policy during Pyramid history.   This is the summary for the "lost" Pyramid show of April 8, 1976 and what happened with an incident identical to that of the "Famous Losers" debacle of three years later, with a slightly different wrinkle.

#9781: $20,000 PYRAMID
1976-04-08, ABC, 30 min.
Dick Clark , Bob Clayton , Vikki Lawrence , Rick Hurst , Lenore Lucy , Bob Palmary , Larry Banner , Ruth Pickholtz

NOTE: The broadcast on April 8, 1976 is iconic and is of historical importance. On this program contestant Ruth Pickholtz, a young recently graduated attorney, appears in the second portion of the show playing four rounds with partner Rick Hurst ("Things Associated with Law," "Things People Pull Out," "Things People Join," and "Describe Things that Begin with the Letter K." Ruth Pickholtz wins $10,000. There is great celebration.
However, when returning from a commercial break Dick Clark had the following caveat to say:

DICK CLARK: "Ruth, I've had some miserable jobs in my life and this is not the most pleasant. We have just gone through the exhilaration of your quote, "winning 10,0000 dollars." Human beings are entitled to mistakes. We made a bad one. We have given away 3 million dollars on this show, so a $10,000 gift really means nothing. We cannot in all consciousness give you that because as you will recall in the category "Things That Have Brands," Rick Hurst said something about names of products (Mouton Rothschild) which is really a description and it equals a brand. I just went through a lengthy meeting with our standards, people who have been watching over us all these years. We don't want the money. We cannot give it to you because of people who have gone bye before you and who will follow. We would like you to name a charity and we'll send them the $10,000 and give you another opportunity."   

RUTH PICKHOLTZ: "That's fine. I would like to give it to The National Association of Retarded Children."   

DICK CLARK: "You're a good lady. We'll see you first thing tomorrow."

Ruth Pickholtz returned the following day (broadcast, Friday April 9, 1976), and this time she won $10,000 to keep.

NOTE: In January 2022 Ruth Pickholtz contacted Archival Television Audio, Inc. In a conversation with founder and owner of ATA, Phil Gries, Ruth stated how for many years she had been attempting to obtain/locate this show, but to no avail (very few "Pyramid" broadcasts survive in any form, video, audio, transcript, thru mid 1978).

Finally, after appearing on this broadcast on April 8, 1976, she will be able to listen to herself for the first time in 46 years.

[Kevin Prather]

That's certainly an interesting way to resolve that matter. We can't give it to you, but we'll give it to your favorite charity. I wonder why they didn't keep doing that.

[TLEberle]

Because that extra ten grand adds up. I presume they were budgeted for maybe two wins per week—maybe three?

Also it could set a precedent of every hairy call means the equivalent of a win.

[Mike Tennant]

Other than something like "a rancher's cattle," what clues come to mind for "Things That Have Brands" besides product names?

EDIT: I guess you could get a little more specific with that one clue ("a rancher's cattle's hindquarters"), which might be enough, but it's still a pretty limited category, I'd think.

[chrisholland03]

"Designer Jeans" is the only other era-relevant clue I can come up with

[KrisW73]

"Colorful can labels"

[TimK2003]

Vehicle's back-ends.

[steveleb]

One of the more innovative solutions, and fortunately for the charity at a time when Bob and the show were at a peak.  Three years later, the donation might have been z-brick and a master mechanic shop-vac.

[BrandonFG]

Other than something like "a rancher's cattle," what clues come to mind for "Things That Have Brands" besides product names?

There’s no way I come up with this while on the clock, but “a product’s seal of approval”? It’s a very clunky clue for a category that only has a couple good answers. I’m guessing they gave her a second chance more because they knew that was a really weird category and she and Rick had to work hard for that 10K.

It also reminds me of the early CBS episode where they replaced the top category after Richard Deacon struggled for whatever reason. The replacement ended up being THINGS AT A PARTY, which the contestant nailed instantly.

[steveleb]

A gift catalogue?

[clemon79]

"A rancher's iron." Pair that with "A rancher's cattle" and then do a little soft-shoe if that doesn't get them home. Maybe throw in "Grocery products" if you have to?

[Otm Shank]

What makes this a little different from the Famous Losers incident was that decision came before the break as opposed to returning from break. (Let's set aside future take-back-the-money situations for a second.)

The charity donation seems to indicate there was some level of disagreement on the decision, and maybe there was more push from S&P than the judges, so this was the compromise solution. I'm sure someone will pull out examples, but I don't think Things That Have Brands was used again, or maybe reworded.

Where was the box located? This might also be a factor in the disagreement, because a bottom row box is not usually going to be too technical.

The wording of the clue is weird, plural Things and plural Brands. So clues like a Coke or a Kleenex are both nominally the thing and the brand, so they fit the subject in a way. Not much of a wine connoisseur to know if Mouton Rothschild is one of those brands that are so synonymous with the product, but now it's getting incredibly subjective. But I would say "Coke bottles" and "a Kleenex tissue" are extra-technically incorrect, because those items have one brand and not (plural) brands.

I think there was a recognition of a poorly written clue, and perhaps not enough time to run a replacement, leading to this decision. I'm sure they probably put something down in writing after that to not make this the precedent solution. I imagine, even with the frugal Bob Stewart jokes, they paid the regular Winners' Circle winnings out of the prize budget and the production company just made the charitable donation and wrote it off.

[Blanquepage]

For things with a brand, what about "a non-generic product?"