If Password returned,

[GS Warehouse]

[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 11:07 PM\'] Actually, Voltaire is good for the mind, too. [/quote]
I prefer Spider or Freecell myself.  [ducks]

[Brandon Brooks]

Actually, I knew you couldn't resist having the last word, so out the window goes your 'translation.' And actually, I had Dvorak in mind, but Voltaire will do nicely. If you want to think less of me, as I said earlier, more power to you. (I will admit it is fun to argue w/ you, sometimes. It is theraputic, at least for me, after a long week in the office.)

Whatever argument you have with Chris is fine, but you should answer the person that you decided to insult in the first place.

Oh, and to answer your question of 'why jack it up'? Because it's MONEY! Given the choice of $25,000 and returning champs (I never ruled out that last part) or $10,000 and returning champs, which would you choose? Would I say 'no' to ten grand? Hell no! Would I rather have twenty-five grand over ten grand? All things being equal, HELL YES!

Which is the definition of mo' money syndrome:  the mo' money, the better.   And for the game, that's simply not always true.

First things first, though, and that's getting the show back on the air, preferably w/o the Pearson-style 'improvements' that took down Match Game, TTTT, and Card Sharks.

If done right, Pearson improvements could work.   At least TTTT lasted for a season and a half, and that was with a mostly hands off approach in the changing of the game play, IMO.

Brandon Brooks

[DrJWJustice]

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 11:28 PM\']
If done right, Pearson improvements could work.   At least TTTT lasted for a season and a half, and that was with a mostly hands off approach in the changing of the game play, IMO. [/quote]
 My definition of 'Pearson improvements' is any change to a show that alters the spirit of the game in a negative way.  I particularly aim that at MG '98, FF '98, and esepcially Card Sharks.  Feud has moved back toward what it it's supposed to be, and I don't have to remind old members of ATGS of the late and greatly missed Randy Amasia's complaints about that show under Louie Anderson.  (Newer members of the group, contact me or another 'oder' member, and we'll fill you in).  

And Brandon, believe it or not, I totally agree with you on TTTT.  It's the only  Pearson revival to date that they bascially got right, IMO.  So far, it's the only revival I've enjoyed.  

As for your 'mo money syndrome' we're going to have to agree to disagree in the case of Password.  I don't have a problem with a $25,000 jackpot for Alphabetics (or Lightning Round or whatever name a revival gives it).  There's a few Super Password shows on the trading circuit w/ wins in excess of $45,000, and I have a PW+ $25k Alphabetics win.  Those were, of course, progressive jackpots that started at $5,000.

[DrJWJustice]

[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 07:43 PM\'] Lemme give you a happy medium. $20,000. There. [/quote]
 Feud's current pot.  That's a decent number.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 09:04 PM\'] Oh, and to answer your question of 'why jack it up'?  Because it's MONEY!  Given the choice of $25,000 and returning champs (I never ruled out that last part) or $10,000 and returning champs, which would you choose?  Would I say 'no' to ten grand?  Hell no!  Would I rather have twenty-five grand over ten grand?
 [/quote]
 And as a viewer, who isn't going to be cashing EITHER check, I say again, WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Okay, obviously, it's time for my lesson on Mo' Money Syndrome. Gather 'round, kids, Uncle Chris is about to drop some mad knowledge:

The production of game shows is a BUSINESS. This business is about gathering up pairs of eyeballs that can be delivered to advertisers. And, like any business, you want to accomplish this by spending as little money as possible.

So let's say that you can get X number of people to watch your show if you offer $10K in your bonus game. But you can get Y number MORE people to watch your show if you offer a bonus prize of $25K.

The question at this point becomes: If the prize budget cost per person (let's call it CPP) for X viewers is X / (prize budget figured on grand prize of 10K), then why bump it to 25K unless the prize budget CPP of those additional Y viewers is less than that?

The only answer for that is \"Because that bump in viewers allows us to raise ad rates such that it covers or exceeds the bump in CPP.\" And I'm telling you, in the case of most GSN shows, and probably in the case of most network shows, that ain't gonna happen.

Yeah, $25,000 is a lot of money, and it's exciting to watch people win it. So why not $50,000? That must be an even BIGGER rush, right? Damn, $100,000 must be positively mind-blowingly fun. Or...how about ....ONE MEEEEELION DOLLARS! 'Scuse me, I need to clean up.

The answer is simple. Because you have to stay within the CPP number given to you by your producers.  And the difference in CPP between a $10K jackpot and a $25K jackpot, when compared to the increase in ad revenue, doesn't justify the expenditure.

So if you (and I don't mean you, specifically, JW, I mean the global \"you\") are going to try to argue that \"such and such show would be better with an X billion dollar jackpot\", then you had better be prepared to explain to me how that single alteration makes that show SO MUCH BETTER than it draws enough extra viewers to cover that expense. And I'm betting, nine times out of ten, you won't be able to do it.

[DrJWJustice]

(Uncle) Chris, you make an excellent argument for the business standpoint, but your excellent argument (I mean that as a sincere compliment) left out a few details.  First, if you want to spend as little money as possible, in this scenario, you work the game such as to make ANY amount of money not-so-easy to win.  

Hypothetically, let's say a revival goes with the PW+ Alphabetics game.  I've seen a suggestion in the past to drop the clock to :45 from the :60 used on the last two series of the show.  There would be fewer winners, and therefore, less money given away.  In such a case, I would suggest raising the money stakes to compensate for the time taken from the clock.  For some of us in this group, this would be an improvement.  It's kind of like betting on horse races -- when the odds are longer that a horse will win, the payout for betting on him if he does win goes up as a compensation.  Taking this from the race track and putting it into a a game show perspective, everytime someone sets foot in front of the Alphabetics board, the show's producers are essentially betting on whether someone can give ten correct answers within the time allotted.  This does add a new twist to the argument, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's comments in return.  Yes, I would respectfully and with much interest like to hear from Brandon and Chris on this point.  

Both PW+ and SP started with $5000 pots, with PW+ moving to a progressive pot toward the end of its run & SP having a progressive pot throughout its run.  Putting in the dollar figures, and speaking for me personally, I'd be more on the edge of my seat for a $25,000 base pot (w/ $5000 added per loss) and a :45 clock than for a $10,000 pot (progressive or not progressive, take your choice) and a :60 clock.  Not everyone would be on the edge of their seat as I was when watching them back in the day, but there ARE viewers out there who would be.  I've sat in enough doctor's offices as a kid watching this stuff on TV in the waiting room to know this.  Things might be different in other parts of the country, though, I'll allow.  But, the chances are we'd have more successful runs of Alphabetics with the $10,000/:60 set-up, but I'd also bet that less money would be spent overall on prizes with a $25,000/:45 set-up.  

I base this theory on the short-lived $50,000 Pyramid, which reduced the Winner's Circle to $5000 per game and the $50,000 round-robin tournament.  There was a bigger prize, to be sure, at the top of the pyramid, and I suspect it gave away less prize money in the aggregate because of this format.  I also acknowledge that this is widely regarded as the 'failed' version of the show.  But, I'll also point to the $100,000 Pyramid, which did not reduce the Winner's Circle for \"regular\" wins and added the grand prize for the Tournament of Champions.  

Speaking of which, this brings up another compromise.  Do Brandon's $10,000 non-progressive pot for the show and have a tournament at the end of the season for, say $50,000.  That, I believe, WOULD go toward making the argument that mo' money makes the show mo' watchable.  Some may disagree, and that's fine, but it's a thought, and it's been done successfully before on other programs.

I'll readily admit that this is none of this is a sure deal -- and we'd have no way of knowing unless it was actually tried.  We could also do this by going back and watch every single episode of PW+ and SP and note the wins in >:45 versus those that were between :45 and :60 and go from there.  I'd do it myself, but I've got a disertation I've got to finish researching and writing.  However, it would be fun to do such a project at some point in time in collaboration with others on this group.  

Chris, I don't know if there is anything I can say that will sway you in my direction of thought.  But, dropping the insults and flames that get us nowhere, I found your challenge worth a try.  I hope I made as decent an argument here as you made in your last post.  

Comments & replies?

[Robert Hutchinson]

(Uncle) Chris, you make an excellent argument for the business standpoint, but your excellent argument (I mean that as a sincere compliment) left out a few details.  First, if you want to spend as little money as possible, in this scenario, you work the game such as to make ANY amount of money not-so-easy to win.

Except that the goal is not to spend as little money as possible--the goal is to make the most profit off of your show as possible.

Let me try to make a rough sketch of the Average Osmond Pyramid Viewer (AOPV), in various alternate universes of differing amounts of prize money.

The $8.32 Pyramid: \"CHEAP!!\" AOPVs run away in droves.
The $5,000 Pyramid: \"They used to give away $10K and $25K in the '80s. Kinda cheap of them.\" A significant number of AOPVs tune out.
The $10K-$25K Pyramid: \"Ooh, nice, round, familiar numbers. Wish I had that much money.\"
The $25K-$50K Pyramid: \"Ooh, nice, round numbers.  Wish I had that much money.\" (Producers: \"The ratings only ticked up a hundredth of a point? Time to sell more blood.\")
The $500K Pyramid: \"Holy crap, that's cool! Too bad it never made it to air because the sponsors couldn't begin to cover the cost.\"

Contestants want The $500000000000000000000 Pyramid. Producers want The 5 Peso Pyramid. Audiences are what make the prize money what it actually is.

[DrJWJustice]

Except that the goal is not to spend as little money as possible--the goal is to make the most profit off of your show as possible.

 
Chris is arguing strictly the business perspective, and when taking that point of view, the object is to make the greatest amount of money possible.  That's done by keeping expenses as low as possible while keeping revenues as high as possible.  

Contestants want The $500000000000000000000 Pyramid. Producers want The 5 Peso Pyramid. Audiences are what make the prize money what it actually is.

I think this statement does a better job of looking at the whole picture.

[Brandon Brooks]

Hypothetically, let's say a revival goes with the PW+ Alphabetics game. I've seen a suggestion in the past to drop the clock to :45 from the :60 used on the last two series of the show. There would be fewer winners, and therefore, less money given away. In such a case, I would suggest raising the money stakes to compensate for the time taken from the clock. For some of us in this group, this would be an improvement. It's kind of like betting on horse races -- when the odds are longer that a horse will win, the payout for betting on him if he does win goes up as a compensation. Taking this from the race track and putting it into a a game show perspective, everytime someone sets foot in front of the Alphabetics board, the show's producers are essentially betting on whether someone can give ten correct answers within the time allotted. This does add a new twist to the argument, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's comments in return. Yes, I would respectfully and with much interest like to hear from Brandon and Chris on this point.

This example to me isn't mo' money syndrome.  I agree $25K and :45 would be a nice trade-off.  To me, alphabetics has always been rather easy.  Sixty seconds for $25K for that bonus round?  Uh-uh.  Forty-five seconds for $25K?  Better.   Wins would be rare enough to be interesting to look at.

I base this theory on the short-lived $50,000 Pyramid, which reduced the Winner's Circle to $5000 per game and the $50,000 round-robin tournament. There was a bigger prize, to be sure, at the top of the pyramid, and I suspect it gave away less prize money in the aggregate because of this format. I also acknowledge that this is widely regarded as the 'failed' version of the show. But, I'll also point to the $100,000 Pyramid, which did not reduce the Winner's Circle for \"regular\" wins and added the grand prize for the Tournament of Champions.

Speaking of which, this brings up another compromise. Do Brandon's $10,000 non-progressive pot for the show and have a tournament at the end of the season for, say $50,000.

That's fine, but I never said I didn't want a progressive pot.  I don't think I do want one, but I never said previously that I didn't.

That, I believe, WOULD go toward making the argument that mo' money makes the show mo' watchable. Some may disagree, and that's fine, but it's a thought, and it's been done successfully before on other programs.

It's not a bad thought at all.  A tournament of champions is always nice:  good gameplay with people you know will get a glut of money.  This is fine, but as an ongoing thing, I really don't like.  That's why I protested so much against the $25K idea.

Chris, I don't know if there is anything I can say that will sway you in my direction of thought. But, dropping the insults and flames that get us nowhere, I found your challenge worth a try. I hope I made as decent an argument here as you made in your last post.

It's appreciated.

Brandon Brooks

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 02:16 AM\'] The $8.32 Pyramid: "CHEAP!!" AOPVs run away in droves.
The $5,000 Pyramid: "They used to give away $10K and $25K in the '80s. Kinda cheap of them." A significant number of AOPVs tune out.
The $10K-$25K Pyramid: "Ooh, nice, round, familiar numbers. Wish I had that much money."
The $25K-$50K Pyramid: "Ooh, nice, round numbers.  Wish I had that much money." (Producers: "The ratings only ticked up a hundredth of a point? Time to sell more blood.")
The $500K Pyramid: "Holy crap, that's cool! Too bad it never made it to air because the sponsors couldn't begin to cover the cost."
 [/quote]
 Robert makes EXACTLY the point I was going to respond to JW with: you make the bonus game harder to win, you are going to alienate potential viewers, which means lower ratings, which means less revenue, which means you need to cut your prize budget for next season (if there is one), which means A) the bonus has to get even HARDER or B) the prize has to lower. Either way, it means lower ratings....

To maximize profits, you have to maximize the simple ratio of (Ad Revenue) / (Prize Budget). Which means you have to find a number for that prize budget, along with a frequency of payout, that gets the most people to watch, because the number of viewers DIRECTLY drives Ad Revenue.

For the sake of argument, let's say that my 10K payout for a :60 Alphabetics and JW's 25K payout for a :45 Alphabetics end up working out to an identical total prize budget.  (Because a :45 Alphabetics is harder to win, it wouldn't pay out as often.) You have to ask yourself if the extra viewers you turn on with your Big Money Jackpot is going to make up for the viewers you lose because you can only afford to pay out on it once every two weeks. I'm suggesting it doesn't.

But, the chances are we'd have more successful runs of Alphabetics with the $10,000/:60 set-up, but I'd also bet that less money would be spent overall on prizes with a $25,000/:45 set-up.

The only way this can happen, using your proposed progressive system, is when the 25K pot hits whatever ceiling you assign to it and nothing more is added to it for a while. Consider: 5K is paid out each time you both play, no matter what ('cuz that's the increment, it will be paid EVENTUALLY), and your seed value (which kicks in when someone wins) is two and a half times bigger than Brandon's, which means you has to go all the way to 50K (or whatever, God help you if it's more) without a winner that much more often to keep the two budgets close. Granted, it only takes you six plays (or more) to get there, but the point is that means that you can pay out on it even less often than you think, or you have to pull in that many MORE viewers to alleviate the added expense. By and large, a game show that can only afford to pay out their grand prize at MOST once a week isn't gonna be on very long.)

Also, to supplement Robert's point about setting the prize too low...frequency of payout works into this too. If the jackpot were $5K in 90 seconds, you'd turn viewers off as well. In fact, this seems to be one of the the big knocks on the new Pyramid, that the jackpot is given away too often. Certainly it's a big part of why I don't watch it.

But, I'll also point to the $100,000 Pyramid, which did not reduce the Winner's Circle for \"regular\" wins and added the grand prize for the Tournament of Champions.

Noted. But also note that a) during tournament weeks, there were no 7-11 or Mystery 7 prizes available, much less given away, and b) the Winner's Circle had freakin' impossible categories like \"Things That Are Etruscan\", which meant the Big Fella (if I may Cosby momentarily) wasn't gonna be given away without a fight. So if you figure the prize budget for the regular show was 50K a week in the WC and another $15 in bonus prizes (remember, they frequently gave away cars for the Mystery 7), then assuming the Tournament lasted a week (and that seems to me to be about right), then the prize budget that week only jumped about 35K. Now spread that over a six-week tournament cycle (I think I remember Dick mentioning that was roughly the frequency) and you're looking at a modest kick of 5K a week in prize budget - more than reasonable for a nighttime syndication of a daytime show. Hell, Match Game PM had that ten or twelve years before.

[DrJWJustice]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 12:41 PM\'] Robert makes EXACTLY the point I was going to respond to JW with: you make the bonus game harder to win, you are going to alienate potential viewers, which means lower ratings, which means less revenue, which means you need to cut your prize budget for next season (if there is one), which means A) the bonus has to get even HARDER or B) the prize has to lower. Either way, it means lower ratings....
 [/quote]
 Dude, I'm not sure where you're reading this into Robert's post.  I didn't get that from his message.  I'll give it another look, in case I did miss something.

In any event, I'm not sure making a bonus game harder necessarily alienates viewers.  Making it impossible certainly would, which is exactly what they did on Caesar's Challenge, and the show floundered as a result.  On the other hand, I'd argue that \"Wheel of Fortune\" has made its bonus round harder by making the puzzles more of a challenge (fewer RSTNLE's), and they also raised the stakes significantly.  It's doing extremely well in the ratings, as it always has.  

This argument has gone to strictly economics.  Just as Chris doesn't watch game shows strictly for the prizes awarded, I for one don't watch a show strictly to see if it's economically sound.  I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here, because I'm not just entirely convinced by this part of the argument.

The only way this can happen, using your proposed progressive system, is when the 25K pot hits whatever ceiling you assign to it and nothing more is added to it for a while.

This assumes certain things, such as the top prize being won on a routine basis or an automatic roll-over of the entire top prize.  In fact, shows of this type might have a spate of several consecutive or near-consecutive wins, followed by a drought of winners.  Take the progressive era of PW+ and SP.  In essense, the money was going to be given away one way or another.  Win the bonus round on the first play, get $5,000 (old system).  Lose the first bonus round but win the second, get $10,000.  Whether it's awarded as 2 x $5000 or 1 x $10,000, you're out the same amount of money.  Actually, you're out more money in the case of the latter as you have a consoluation prize in the form of $100 for every answer that was given correctly.  You could be out as much as $10,900 in the latter scenario as opposed to $10,000 even in the first.  Let's say we do $25,000 (since we've been using that number), and add $5,000 for each loss.  Lose the first bonus, win the second.  That's $30,000.  It averages to $15,000 per game, which is less than a single win at the top prize value.  My point is that the amount of the raise in the jackpot for a loss changes the dynamics of what you're arguing.  I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but I am saying that there's more to this than you've argued.  

Also, to supplement Robert's point about setting the prize too low...frequency of payout works into this too. If the jackpot were $5K in 90 seconds, you'd turn viewers off as well. In fact, this seems to be one of the the big knocks on the new Pyramid, that the jackpot is given away too often. Certainly it's a big part of why I don't watch it.

You're not the first to make this argument and it's valid, but there are also those who have said the fact that the show has no returning players (save in the tournament), an increase in the number of wins is an acceptable trade-off.  Naturally, not all viewers look at game shows under the microscope like we do.

[DrJWJustice]

It's appreciated.

You're entirely welcome. :-)

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 23 2003,12:40 PM\']I for one don't watch a show strictly to see if it's economically sound. [/quote]

Then you're ignoring a basic fact of real life, because in the real world, if it's not economically sound, you won't be watching it AT ALL. If you don't think economics weren't part of what killed Povich's Twenty-One, you're just not thinking.

This assumes certain things, such as the top prize being won on a routine basis or an automatic roll-over of the entire top prize.  In fact, shows of this type might have a spate of several consecutive or near-consecutive wins, followed by a drought of winners.  Take the progressive era of PW, and SP.

No, it doesn't assume that at all. I'll try this one more time, and I've pretty much said my piece on the issue anyhow:

Consider two scenarios:

1) 10K base value, increases 5K each time it's not won.
2) 25K base value, increases 5K each time it's not won.

You're saying that if the game in (2) is hard enough, it will give out less money than (1) because it's not won as often. Let's look at them this way:

1) 5K per attempt GUARANTEED PAYMENT, plus 5K each time bonus is won.
2) 5K per attempt GUARANTEED PAYMENT, plus 20K each time bonus is won.

Let's take a 90 day period, and assume that the endgame is won once every third day in case (1). (This also assumes 1 endgame per day, we're not straddling here):

1) (90 * 5K) + (30 * 5K) = $600,000 = $200,000 per month.

Now, case (2), no ceiling on the jackpot (for simplicity), and we'll say it's won once every 10 days:

2) (90 * 5K) + (9 * 20K) = $630,000 =  $210,000 per month.

(It evens out at 12 days for case (2), by the way.)

I'd say every third day is a reasonable assumption for most game shows. That means to afford a 25K seed, progressive jackpot, all other things being equal, your game has to be four times as hard, won on the average once every twelveth day. People aren't gonna go for that. ESPECIALLY if, as you say, there is a rash of winners. You get three winners in a week, you're due for a cold spell of AT LEAST A MONTH before you see another one, if you're not gonna break the bank.

\"But the jackpot will be up toa jillion dollars! It'll be great!\" Yeah, and then you get California Lottery Syndrome, where the viewers no longer care about those $35K and $40K hits, they wanna see someone win the jillion dollars, 'cuz it's been done before. But in order for that to happen, probability-wise, you need a string of crappy wins followed by a huge glut of bad luck. That's just not good TV. Wintuition showed us that.

[edholland83]

Wow, I'm really surprised by the gathered interest in this post, this is something that I wasn't expecting, my next question about if Password returned, who would you think should be the host?

[Jimmy Owen]

I think Tom Bergeron would be perfect as Password host.  Does anyone remember how Ed McMahon handled the job after \"Snap Judgment\" assumed the \"Password\" format?