Author Topic: Should 'Feud' raise jackpot? (Read 662847 times)

WarioBarker · « **Reply #30 on:** February 02, 2013, 09:16:56 PM »

See also: Temptation, US. Holy crap did that mess up -- references to the next show were always, always \"next time\" and they didn\'t get around to the first tapings until March 2008. And even if a champ left, there was still the growing-to-$5,000 Instant Cash.

And the Instant Cash still grew on its predecessor, the actual Sale of the Century, no matter what. Not a good point to argue with.

I\'m not talking about Instant Cash growing -- my point was that Instant Cash was, for example, $1,000 on the first aired episode (single-run markets, at least) and sometimes bounced around in value because the show was airing out of order.

(As an aside, per an old topic on this forum, the single-run and double-run episodes actually switched slots shortly into the run.)

...But Jeopardy! has zero problem airing in order and announcing when champs will take time off due to an upcoming special week. It really isn\'t hard to schedule episodes to air in order, unless you deliberately tape out of order (Wheel).

No there isn\'t but Jeopardy! is a completely different beast.

I\'m being serious when I ask this -- how so? Because it isn\'t being produced by Fremantle? Because it doesn\'t air double-run?

(On the other hand, Crosswords didn\'t have returning champs and paid dearly by playing format hopscotch.)

I\'m willing to bet the \"format hopscotch\" thing was about as far from the reason why Crosswords failed as it was that the game mechanics were broken. And I gotta argue against that anyway, because it wasn\'t \"format hopscotch\". It was \"payout hopscotch.\"

Fair enough, and I appreciate the correction.

I\'m sure it was confusing to at least some people, though. \"They weren\'t playing for trips yesterday!\", for example, or -- and this actually happened to me because I was in a double-run market -- \"Why are they showing the episode they just got finished airing?\"

(Yes, the single-run and double-run schedules actually bounced around so much they ended up getting to the same episode on the same day. That...really shouldn\'t happen.)

Hence my suggestion to give losing families $1,000 instead. The winners of a particular episode then get that when they lose.

Which solves nothing.

Admittedly, I forgot about Feud paying families\' travel expenses, so thanks for the correction. If they still do that, then $500 consolation money is actually quite fine. If they don\'t, then it should be $1,000 in line with Wheel, Jeopardy!, and Millionaire.

PYLdude · « **Reply #31 on:** February 02, 2013, 10:45:26 PM »

With Jeopardy the difference is the way the show is structured. If it didn\'t have returning champions then sure, get away with it if you want. To me the way the game is conducted is a little too rigid to change. You can\'t just have someone win one game, become champ, then have him disappear for a couple days so you can show someone else. Jeopardy is very linear.

And I don\'t know if I\'ve said it before but you don\'t need to do double runs. The ones that do it right are the ones that have the second be a rerun from the previous season.

cacLA8383 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 02, 2013, 11:31:46 PM »

You do realize who you\'re dealing with, Chris?

Well aware, don\'t care. Ignoring people like Dan does nothing. You need to talk sense into them.

Or what we call, feeding a troll. Have at it, then.

WarioBarker · « **Reply #33 on:** February 03, 2013, 02:10:40 AM »

With Jeopardy the difference is the way the show is structured. If it didn\'t have returning champions then sure, get away with it if you want. To me the way the game is conducted is a little too rigid to change. You can\'t just have someone win one game, become champ, then have him disappear for a couple days so you can show someone else. Jeopardy is very linear.

Fair point on Jeopardy! being a different kind of game show than Feud and Temptation, but IMO the same principle should apply to all shows with returning players. Like you said, self-contained shows can get away with airing out of order, but it takes more effort to schedule a show like that and looks bad if you change your format or rules at some point during the season (Wheel Season 29, most of Crosswords\' run).

Mind you, airing out of order clearly hasn\'t hurt Feud in any way (getting its highest ratings since the Combs era is applause-worthy no matter what), but it\'s still annoying IMO.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #34 on:** February 04, 2013, 07:39:30 AM »

Dear LGY:

Please explain to me how a higher prize would correlate with higher ratings.

I see you take your money management skills from George Steinbrenner...spend money; throw darts.

Dear Mr.Benfield:

Why do shows owe losing contestants anything? Isn\'t a free trip enough? I think this, unfortunately is the result of a younger generation. People think things have to be \"even and fair\" regardless of circumstances. That\'s not the way the real world works. There\'s winners and losers.

BillCullen1:

Why should a family have the chance to earn more money because they lost the first time?

(I would have quoted the relevant posts but last time I tried it was one big mess.)

BrandonFG · « **Reply #35 on:** February 04, 2013, 09:20:15 AM »

Dear Mr.Benfield:

Why do shows owe losing contestants anything? Isn\'t a free trip enough? I think this, unfortunately is the result of a younger generation. People think things have to be \"even and fair\" regardless of circumstances. That\'s not the way the real world works. There\'s winners and losers.

It\'s so much an entitlement issue as much as it is the fact that it just seems cheap. esp. when Temptation did it with the \"Temptation Dollars\", which to me was laughable considering the opponent payouts would\'ve been a total of about $100 per episode, give or take.

I didn\'t know the show even provided the free trip, so that\'s a nice consolation. It\'s just shows for years (prior Feuds included) offered consolation prizes, either cash, Rice-a-Roni, or a Jeep boombox, so Fremantle looks like a bunch of cheapskates here.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #36 on:** February 04, 2013, 12:15:36 PM »

They should totally raise the consolation money to $10 a point.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #37 on:** February 04, 2013, 12:48:50 PM »

They should totally raise the consolation money to $10 a point.

I\'d back this, though if families are still getting comped for travel, then I\'m a little more ambivalent on the issue.

/Though I imagine Feud\'s getting comped for comping travel, too.

TLEberle · « **Reply #38 on:** February 04, 2013, 02:30:08 PM »

Why do shows owe losing contestants anything?

\"Owe\" is the wrong word. It is a courtesy to give someone who does you a favor (and yes, contestants appearing on a game show are doing the production company a favor) that you do something in kind. In the old days you\'d have \"departing contestants will receive\" a recliner, a microwave range or the World Book Encyclopedia. It\'s a gesture of kindness: we\'re thanking you for taking time out from your life to indulge our little project. It also eases the sting of losing: you\'re not playing for $10,000 in the bonus round but we appreciate you all the same, hope you\'ll bring home fond memories and speak well of us.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #39 on:** February 04, 2013, 02:31:24 PM »

I\'ll sidestep the question of what to give the losing families. I liked the Dawson-era (and most of the Combs-era) method of playing the main game for $1 a point and getting $5 a point in Fast Money because (during the $300 era) the total for a returing family on their first day gave you an idea of how they played. Less than $1,000 means that they had a bad FM, while $1,300+ meant that they had a combination of a respectable FM loss and a good opponent.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #40 on:** February 04, 2013, 03:06:49 PM »

Why do shows owe losing contestants anything?

It\'s a gesture of kindness: we\'re thanking you for taking time out from your life to indulge our little project.

That\'s an excellent way to put it.

I\'ve worked on and assembled small film projects, mostly shorts. We\'ve occasionally had actors come from a few hours away, and comped them accordingly. We may have given them gas money, which would be close to the equivalent of travel expenses. But we also provided food as well.

Like Travis said, it\'s a gesture, a token of appreciation. No, we didn\'t \"owe\" them anything, and we could\'ve easily said they knew what they were getting into. But if we want them working with us in the future and telling others about how great we are, it\'s the kind of situation where you do to not look cheap.

TLEberle · « **Reply #41 on:** February 04, 2013, 04:18:38 PM »

Well fished, QB-Matt. I hope you have space on your den wall.

BillCullen1 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 04, 2013, 06:02:26 PM »

BillCullen1:

Why should a family have the chance to earn more money because they lost the first time?

BCullen 1\'s response - It HAS been done on other game shows. Now You See It, Super Password, Shoot For The Stars and Rafferty\'s Blockbusters among them. They didn\'t seem to suffer because of it.

WarioBarker · « **Reply #43 on:** February 04, 2013, 08:15:57 PM »

Dear Mr.Benfield:

Why do shows owe losing contestants anything? Isn\'t a free trip enough? I think this, unfortunately is the result of a younger generation. People think things have to be \"even and fair\" regardless of circumstances. That\'s not the way the real world works. There\'s winners and losers.

It\'s so much an entitlement issue as much as it is the fact that it just seems cheap. esp. when Temptation did it with the \"Temptation Dollars\", which to me was laughable considering the opponent payouts would\'ve been a total of about $100 per episode, give or take.

Holy crap, I forgot about \"Temptation Dollars\" (I should\'ve remembered that the whole damn show was cheap from start to finish). I once read long ago that there apparently were consolation prizes, but they never said them on-air for some reason -- instead, anybody who won nothing got \"Lots of love and hugs from [Rossi].\" *gag*

Heck, Crosswords may have been cheap (don\'t know whether they paid travel expenses, but they definitely didn\'t have a house minimum) but they at least plugged their consolation prize -- a Croton watch with the show\'s logo in the center, specifically produced for the show.

I didn\'t know the show even provided the free trip, so that\'s a nice consolation. It\'s just shows for years (prior Feuds included) offered consolation prizes, either cash, Rice-a-Roni, or a Jeep boombox, so Fremantle looks like a bunch of cheapskates here.

Now, see, I thought Fremantle was a bunch of cheapskates except with American Idol, and even that\'s debatable.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #44 on:** February 04, 2013, 09:08:00 PM »

Holy crap, I forgot about \"Temptation Dollars\" (I should\'ve remembered that the whole damn show was cheap from start to finish). I once read long ago that there apparently were consolation prizes, but they never said them on-air for some reason -- instead, anybody who won nothing got \"Lots of love and hugs from [Rossi].\" *gag*

Would that have been the \"Shop at Home\" items plugged during the commercial breaks? Now that you mention it, I thought I read they had their choice from that.