Wheel of Fortune wheel configurations

[Dbacksfan12]

Excluding prizes, bankrupts, wild cards, etc...

1996 average wheel cash value: $735.71
2007 average wheel cash value: $740.47

Why is any change needed?

[Robert Hutchinson]

The average says very little about how interesting the various amounts on the wheel are, in terms of adding a varying level of fortune to each spin of the wheel. (Word use intentional.)

$1500, $500, and $300 average out to the same amount as $800, $800, and $700, but the former makes for more interesting spins.

[Stripey]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'156751\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 07:31 PM\']
[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' post=\'156749\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 04:23 PM\']
I do think that slapping a $1,500 space on the wheel somewhere opposite the $5,000 would be noticed by the viewers
[/quote]
"noticed by the viewers" <> "attract a bigger audience."
[/quote]
I think this is a bit of a strawman and, more importantly, misses the point. Not every production expense is considered in the interest of "attracting a bigger audience." This type of subtle change wouldn't be made to grow the audience; its intent would be to keep the show fresh for current viewers. And not necessarily on a "wow, that's new!!" level, simply in a general aesthetic sense.

This seems to be the point that Scott and Robert are making, and it's a valid one. Production isn't such a black-and-white exercise as "will it attract a bigger audience or not?" -- it's a value proposition. Nobody rational claims that adding a $1500 space would create a Nielsen bump for Wheel. The argument is just that it would freshen the show up a bit. Producers do that.

Looking through the Nighttime Round 1 wheels in the photo gallery, you can even see a few examples of changes that wouldn't have happened if they had to pass the "Joe Sixpack" test: converting one of the $150 spaces to $500 in 1991, converting the $200 spaces to $250 in '96, etc. Robert's $500 Jackpot space example was another good one.

Do I think the producers are going to add a $1500 space to the Round 4 wheel? Probably not -- in recent years they have shown a preference for broader strokes. But it's possible. These adjustments aren't outside the realm of sanity like, say, a gold-plated 3-D video wheel.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Stripey\' post=\'156827\' date=\'Jul 7 2007, 11:28 AM\']
This type of subtle change wouldn't be made to grow the audience; its intent would be to keep the show fresh for current viewers.
[/quote]
In other words, to keep them from leaving, which makes the audience smaller.

"Keeping the audience from shrinking" is EXACTLY the same thing. You're trying to get people to watch the show who normally might not.

And I'm telling you a space change on the wheel is not going to pay for itself in viewer delta, whether it's in growth or preventing loss.

Nobody rational claims that adding a $1500 space would create a Nielsen bump for Wheel. The argument is just that it would freshen the show up a bit. Producers do that.

"Preventing a divot", in this case, is exactly the same as "creating a bump." No matter how many times you might claim otherwise.

These adjustments aren't outside the realm of sanity like, say, a gold-plated 3-D video wheel.

Yeah, they really are.

[Stripey]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'156851\' date=\'Jul 8 2007, 03:58 AM\']
"Keeping the audience from shrinking" is EXACTLY the same thing. You're trying to get people to watch the show who normally might not.
[/quote]
Agreed. In a numbers sense, that is true. In production terms, I'd maintain that it's not. Different changes are made to appeal to different segments of viewers. Production decisions made with the goal of keeping things fresh for current viewers are often separate from those made to attract new/different viewers. I don't say this as if you're not aware of it; just to clarify where I was coming from when I said that keeping the audience from shrinking is a separate consideration. It doesn't dispute your point at all.

And I'm telling you a space change on the wheel is not going to pay for itself in viewer delta, whether it's in growth or preventing loss.

Got it. I understand your stance now. Before, it seemed to me that you were talking about growing the audience, but I misinterpreted. My apologies.

No matter how many times you might claim otherwise.

I'm not sure where this remark comes from. I've posted once in this thread, and I'm not trying to browbeat anyone. I'm open to respectful differences of opinion -- interested in them, in fact.

These adjustments aren't outside the realm of sanity like, say, a gold-plated 3-D video wheel.

Yeah, they really are.

Chris, I hope you'll understand if I'm unimpressed by your "because I say so" rationale. I get that this world-weary thing is your shtick and all, but it's pretty boring for somebody who's actually trying to engage in a cogent discussion.

[Robert Hutchinson]

Would inflation work as an argument here? Because they obviously had some reason for fiddling with the wheel values in the past.

[Stripey]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'156875\' date=\'Jul 8 2007, 02:17 PM\']
Would inflation work as an argument here? Because they obviously had some reason for fiddling with the wheel values in the past.
[/quote]
Yeah, I think inflation definitely plays a part, in combination with viewer psychology. Inflation likely reached a point where $150 spaces seemed "chintzy" enough to remove one (and eventually both) of them, in the interest of keeping the wheel from looking too cheap.

A $300 space, conversely, might be worth less in real terms than it was a decade ago, but it still "feels" like a big number. It's round, it's more than two (hundred), and it's over the price-of-a-vowel threshold. So I can see where the $300 space has remained unchanged for such a long time since, despite inflation, it's not hurting the overall impression of the wheel for most viewers.

Like I said, I believe a wheel change is probably not going to happen in the near future, but in a few years' time, maybe inflation will have reached a point where the producers once again want to make a few tweaks.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'156875\' date=\'Jul 8 2007, 11:17 AM\']
Would inflation work as an argument here? Because they obviously had some reason for fiddling with the wheel values in the past.
[/quote]
The thing is, it misses the point, a little.

My argument is simply that the changes to the wheel in the past aren't being made out of the goodness of the producers' hearts, but instead because it's believed that they would either increase the current or maintain a potentially dwindling audience. And so far I haven't seen one iota of evidence to convince me that adding a $1500 space to the wheel would create enough of a positive delta in audience (whether as a net increase of a prevention of shrinkage) to make that change worth the delta in prize budget that would come with it.

(And I realize we're talking about one single space that a lot of the time isn't even going to get hit, which makes the prize budget hit fairly low. Which should give you an idea of just how much of an audience delta I think it would produce.)

[DoorNumberFour]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'156875\' date=\'Jul 8 2007, 01:17 PM\']
Would inflation work as an argument here? Because they obviously had some reason for fiddling with the wheel values in the past.
[/quote]

Couldn't they compensate for inflation by just using longer puzzles?

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'156881\' date=\'Jul 8 2007, 01:56 PM\']
Couldn't they compensate for inflation by just using longer puzzles?
[/quote]
There's no guarantee that they'll give more money away just because they have longer puzzles.  Of course, there's no guarantee they'd give more money away with $1000 or $1500 spaces on the wheel either.

[Kevin Prather]

To be honest, I would like the old early-90s layout, or something like it, but that's strictly from a game show enthusiast standpoint. (I refuse to call myself a fanb0i.)

If you want to appeal to John Q. Public, or Joe Sixpack or whoever, numbers like $1500 may be considered too odd. Round numbers like $1,000 and $5,000 are more the way to go because they're nice and simple. That's possible why the $425s and $175s disappeared.

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'156880\' date=\'Jul 8 2007, 02:55 PM\']My argument is simply that the changes to the wheel in the past aren't being made out of the goodness of the producers' hearts, but instead because it's believed that they would either increase the current or maintain a potentially dwindling audience. And so far I haven't seen one iota of evidence to convince me that adding a $1500 space to the wheel would create enough of a positive delta in audience (whether as a net increase of a prevention of shrinkage) to make that change worth the delta in prize budget that would come with it.[/quote]
I think you're still missing my point--what was it about those previous changes that did contribute to ratings?

[tpirfan28]

Someone who can analyze the wheels better can probably answer this...but was there any sizable increase in the wheels during the shopping era?  That would probably be due to inflation...since the prizes were becoming more expensive.

Forgot to add in my previous post....I want to see a $1,000,000 space on the wheel in Round 4 and later.

/joking
//really...joking.

[JohnHolder]

[quote name=\'Stripey\' post=\'156827\' date=\'Jul 7 2007, 02:28 PM\']These adjustments aren't outside the realm of sanity like, say, a gold-plated 3-D video wheel.
[/quote]

Or something like this?

http://www.lasvegastalk.com/photopost/show....php/photo/2141

Having stood next to both one of these (at Harrah's in New Orleans), and the low-tech one in Culver City when I was a contestant, I can tell you that this mechanism is probably twice as wide as the wheel in the studio, not to mention three-dimensional and backlit and all that other cool stuff.  It's a great game to play in a casino: when you hit the right combination on the video slot, Pat and Vanna pop up on your video terminal to tell you that you've won, the wheel garishly and noisily spins around on its own and you win some multiple of your original bet.  I had a lot of fun and I won a lot of money (which is also what happened when I was on the show...)

Would I, as a home viewer, want to watch people do this on TV?  Activate the spin by touch-screen?  Maybe for about five minutes.  

I remember, somewhere in the early '90's, thinking that Wheel would be better if the puzzle board had video monitors like the Jeopardy! board instead of those clunky mechanical things that had to be turned by hand.  Then they did that.  That improved the game.  It sped it up (in a good way) and made it possible to do things they couldn't do before.  But making the wheel high-tech wouldn't improve the game.

John (who just dropped in to mention that Millionaire is holding auditions in Charlotte tomorrow, check wbtv.com for details...)

[jbrocato]

[quote name='Stripey' date='Jul 8 2007, 01:53 PM' post='156879']
[quote name='Robert Hutchinson' post='156875' date='Jul 8 2007, 02:17 PM']


A $300 space, conversely, might be worth less in real terms than it was a decade ago, but it still "feels" like a big number. It's round, it's more than two (hundred), and it's over the price-of-a-vowel threshold. So I can see where the $300 space has remained unchanged for such a long time since, despite inflation, it's not hurting the overall impression of the wheel for most viewers.

[/quote]

That was part of my rationale for bringing back numbers like $100 and $200 (along with $1000 and $1500).  There should be spaces worth less than the cost of a vowel.

Perhaps maybe after 32 years it's time to apply inflation to vowels and raise the price to $500.

John Brocato