I have a friend that attend a recent taping of Let\'s Make a Deal.
He stated that during the show, staff states they want people to be excited about being there. They even stated a story about a person who won a car, but didn\'t seem that interested, so they stopped taped, edited her out of the show and claimed they didn\'t give her the car.
Unless one cheats, I say S&P can\'t allow a car to be taken away if you aren\'t thrilled that you won it.
I say that story was told to scare people into being excited when you win a prize.
Your thoughts?
I say that story was told to scare people into being excited when you win a prize.
I would agree with that assessment.
I would agree with that assessment.
When did people stop genuinely being excited about prizes? Late 70s/early 80s? It was always fun to watch the housewives gasp at the prospect of winning a COLOR TV~! in the first years of the Price is Right, but that allure went away over time. They used to cut back to the contestant between each prize description in, say, Poker Game, but later the applause and the happy faces just weren\'t there.
-Jason
When did people stop genuinely being excited about prizes?
(old man rant) Given the way the audience hoots and hollers over the slightest thing*, to the point of where I wonder if THEY even know what they\'re cheering for, I\'m not surprised the staffers are using scare tactics. Maybe it\'s a Fremantle thing...Feud and TPiR do it too...having your staffers force the audience excitement doesn\'t make it exciting.
*WAYNE: What are you dressed as?
CONTESTANT: I\'m Little Red Riding Hood
AUDIENCE: Wooooo!!!
I say that story was told to scare people into being excited when you win a prize.I agree, but only because they would've made the contestant redo her reaction until she gave the "right" amount of excitement the show wanted to see in the first place (as was the case after this Price Is Right taping (http://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,22007.msg390284.html#msg390284)).
Almost directly to the point, here\'s a (badly written) story about a couple of contestants who played the game, and even though their segment didn\'t air, they got their prizes anyway.
Based on this, it would not surprise me if contestants are told in advance that their segment might not air if they don\'t show enough enthusiasm, and somebody misunderstood that to mean that they also wouldn\'t get their prizes.
Could part of it be that the show was offering middle class fare? It might take me some time to put together enough money to buy a dining room set or a domestic holiday, but it could be years before I could be able to buy a mid-range car, or $25,000 in savings. Wasn\'t that ostensibly the point of the instant bargains: luxury goods at heavily discount prices? I wouldn\'t set out to buy a laserdisc player, but if presented the chance to win one I\'d be pleased about it. When that becomes a sewing machine, I smile gamely and golf clap.When did people stop genuinely being excited about prizes?
When did people stop genuinely being excited about prizes?
Roughly about the same time they started picking college kids with no use for a veranda and people wearing BOB ROOLZ T-shirts.
I think the lack of reactions speaks more to a cultural shift than contestant selection. I can\'t speak firsthand, but it feels like the acquisition of material goods as a reflection of one\'s success in life was viewed differently in the 50s than it was in the 90s -- elegantly-crafted home goods (like ornate dining room furniture and silverplated tea services) were still viewed as status symbols and required a lot of hard work to obtain.
And am I correct in assuming that home goods, in general, were more expensive (compared to the average income) in decades past? I saw an episode of TPIR from the early 70s in which the contestant says that she just finished the payments on her refrigerator. And back then, a refrigerator on the show could go for about $999 -- in 2005, TPIR was still offering a refrigerator that retailed for $999.
Another theory: The 1980s introduced the \"greed is good\" mindset. So whereas before, people were more likely to be appreciative of any nice gift, once the attitude of \"I can have everything\" became popular, people expected game shows to exclusively offer big-ticket prizes like cars and cash -- by comparison, a living room group is a disappointment.
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. That\'s not to say the current crop doesn\'t need the appliances, but it is less of a luxury. Scott\'s comparison to prices makes sense too, in that in 1974 winning a range was a big deal ($1000 then was worth about 4.5x that now). Today, it\'s nice but also not as expensive.
I only watch the show when I\'m on a coffee break, but from what I\'ve noticed, your contestants are either college students or grandparents, neither of which really care about appliances or verandas. So for that reason, I do credit the staff for going after more conventional prizes...I know they still give away hot tubs and porch swings, but seeing more stuff like iGadgets and such is pretty cool, even if they do refer to it as a generic \"smartphone\" or \"tablet\" when Stevie Wonder can see it\'s an iPhone or Note.
To the point of more college students appearing on the show, could that be because more women were entering the workforce by the late-70s, and thus not as many housewives? Granted, that doesn\'t explain the punny T-shirts or hot tubs still being offered, and I know wanting a younger demographic is also partly to blame, but it\'s a thought.
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.
I think Bob\'s appearance in Happy Gilmore played a part in the youth appeal, and man cannot live on diabeetus testing kits alone.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 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.
From an S&P legal standpoint, can a prize be taken away if the desired reaction is not produced by the contestant?
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.
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
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."
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.
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.When Jeopardy! and Wheel rule against contestants for mispronouncing or misspelling words (rightly so), it makes CNN.com.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
While on the topic of unwanted prizes... how does one go about in refusing a won prize?
Is it as simple as telling the producer, \"I do not want this\"?
Is it as simple as telling the producer, \"I do not want this\"?
Since generally you have to sign paperwork to take delivery of the prizes you DO win, yes, I suspect it\'s exactly this simple.
While on the topic of unwanted prizes... how does one go about in refusing a won prize?
Is it as simple as telling the producer, \"I do not want this\"?
The way it was handled when I worked at TPIR was you signed some paperwork right after the taping for ALL prizes, but they attached an office phone number that you could call within 30 days if you inevitably changed your mind about a prize.