What Kind of Jollies?

[chris319]

OK all you amateur Freuds out there, the question I pose to you is this:

What kind of jollies do TV viewers get from watching other people win large sums of money? I know I'd be ecstatic if it were my [/i]money, but you can't spend other people's money, so what's the big thrill?

[SplitSecond]

You've mentioned Ken in 13 out of your last 25 posts and started an ample number of threads about him.

You tell us.

[chris319]

[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 01:08 PM\'] You've mentioned Ken in 13 out of your last 25 posts and started an ample number of threads about him.

You tell us. [/quote]
Read the question and those 13 posts again. I do not enjoy seeing him on the show let alone win money.

As for the number of posts, since you felt compelled to count them, you can't say Ken is not a topical, timely subject. Why do you suppose the New York Times is running stories about him?

[Kevin Prather]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 12:58 PM\'] OK all you amateur Freuds out there, the question I pose to you is this:

What kind of jollies do TV viewers get from watching other people win large sums of money? I know I'd be ecstatic if it were my [/i]money, but you can't spend other people's money, so what's the big thrill? [/quote]
You're basically asking "What's the big thrill in watching game shows?".

If you don't see the point in watching game shows, why did you start this board?

And furthermore, why do you insist on undermining this accomplishment, when you know full well that Ken Jennings is a member of this board, and you are probably insulting the crap out of him right now?

[GS Warehouse]

[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 04:08 PM\'] You've mentioned Ken in 13 out of your last 25 posts and started an ample number of threads about him.

You tell us. [/quote]
Chris the C, in the words of Chynna Phillips, can you hold on for one more day?  After today's season finale, it'll all die down (at least until September).

Here my one cent (after taxes): Someone sees someone win a lot of money, he could think, "that could be me".  If a born loser sees someone gets waxed, he doesn't feel so bad about himself.  OK, so that my best work, but what can one cent buy you these days?

ObGS: Chynna appeared on Celebrity Blackjack recently.  Also, her husband, Billy Baldwin was first out of the ring of fire during his edition of Celebrity Millionaire.

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 03:58 PM\'] OK all you amateur Freuds out there, the question I pose to you is this:

What kind of jollies do TV viewers get from watching other people win large sums of money? I know I'd be ecstatic if it were my [/i]money, but you can't spend other people's money, so what's the big thrill? [/quote]
 I've just always liked the element of surprise, the look on their faces, etc.....And the sound effects on some shows that accompany those "big wins" only add to the excitement.

Case in point:

Imagine watching a DSW on TPiR and Bob says, "You win both showcases!", and all that happens is that the total flashes on the podium and she's happy, and that's it.

Then, watch a DSW where Bob says, "You win both showcases!", and there are bells going off, clanging, whooping, and the words "DOUBLE SHOWCASE WINNER" flashing on the screen. That's hella cool. That's what makes it so exciting.

[tvrandywest]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 11:58 AM\'] What kind of jollies do TV viewers get from watching other people win large sums of money? [/quote]
But Chris, in your heart you know better than that. Every producer and programmer you or I have ever talked with (Goodson himself, among them) have regaled us with endless tales of how playalong is the most important factor in crafting a hit.

Psychobabblewise, people relate to and compare their own instincts about what they would do in the situations that others are in. It's people-watching on steroids, and it serves several psychological needs... fantasy escapism, self-reassurance among them.

Much of it is the stuff that an entire HUGE industry has been built on: watching, judging and identifying with pituitary-disordered people running back and forth with a ball. It's called sports.

Watching other people battle challenges is the basis of everything from "Fear Factor" to Shakepearean tragedy. The dramatic element of character development is replaced by the contestant interview or the "quiet room" solo talk-to-the-camera segments on "Big Brother"-type shows. And that is all about the fact that it is easier to relate to a stranger if you can find some commonality with them.

So we learn at least where they are from and what they do for a living as the ultimate shorthand for getting to know the total stranger. And we ask "How do you feel?" and "What will you do with the money?" as ways to make it easier for the home viewer to get involved, emote, relate and identify. It's the same reason contestant coordinators love outgoing players who are demonstrative and so emotionally accessible. It's why people on honeymoons or celebrating birthdays make great participants - emotional common ground that audience members share with the player - we all have birthdays.

And it's the same reason that at least one member of the armed forces in uniform is almost guaranteed a spot in contestants' row on TPiR if they are in the audience that day. We instantly have feelings about members of the military and believe we know at least SOMETHING about their lives without a single word being spoken. Most of America knows someone who was or is in the armed forces, so the viewer can instantly feel a connection with those players.

Still reading? Then we BOTH need lives! Yes, I have an extensive education (and even some certification) in the field of psychology. Developing rapport with audience members, creating the sense of family among them, and maintaining their interest and involvement with game play are the vital elements in good audience warm-up. It's more about psychology than stand-up comedy. I've been a fascinated student of all this kinda stuff for years.

Now I gotta go get ready to watch, relate to, identify with and laugh/cry/celebrate/commiserate/emote with other people. Should I watch a soap or "America's Funniest Home Videos" or dodgeball? Or maybe I should actually talk with a real-life friend.


Randy
tvrandywest.com

[CarShark]

I love watching people that are happy. I know is probably sounds lame, but there is this one episode of Hollywood Squares that had an emotional female contestant that won the Secret Square (a car and a trip around the world, I think) and started to cry. While Peter Marshall is describing what she had won, Buddy Hackett remarks, "This girl is crying!" As soon as he says that, I cry, too. I just feel so happy for her, especially because she said that she never wins anything. I try not to get too emotionally attached to game show contestants in general, but that is one exception I'm happy to make.

[SplitSecond]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 01:21 PM\'] Read the question and those 13 posts again. I do not enjoy seeing him on the show let alone win money. [/quote]
 It took me a mere 30 seconds to quantify your obsession with this man - far less time than you've spent actually obsessing about him.

I'll restate my answer from when you asked this EXACT SAME QUESTION weeks ago:

The thrill for me is not outcome-based.  If all I was interested in was the outcome of a basketball game, I'd just watch the last 5 minutes.  If all I was interested in was the outcome of a game show, all I'd do is read Steve Beverly's website or look at the Show Summaries section of this forum.

But yet I'm watching Ken Jennings' run on Jeopardy!  Why?  Because of the exact reason the show works in the first place - play-along.  The contestants can't signal in until the question is read, but I can sure shout out the answer any time I please.  I then get the positive feeling from having "beat" Ken to the answer - or better yet, getting the answer when Ken doesn't get to answer it correctly.  And when Ken and I both miss a question, I don't feel so bad about my limited breadth of knowledge.

Up until now, the average Jeopardy! viewer could give a flying flip about who wins each game.  My grandmother watches to feel good about getting the Final Jeopardy answer right, not to see whether the contestant that she likes wins or loses.

Here's a different example of progression vs. outcome:

Person A creates and pitches Pricing Game A - let's call it "Flip Flop Prices".  That game doesn't see the light of day.  Person B comes along and creates the exacts same game 10 years later - let's call it "Switch?" (Pricing Game B).  Pricing Game B makes it to air.  Person B had no knowledge of Person A or Person A's pitch.  Person A claims to several hundred people that he created Pricing Game B.

As an outcome person, Chris, you're merely interested in the fact that Pricing Game B is on the air.  As a progression person, I have a serious problem with Person A claiming that he created Pricing Game B.

That's where we differ.

[chris319]

Person A creates and pitches Pricing Game A - let's call it "Flip Flop Prices". That game doesn't see the light of day. Person B comes along and creates the exacts same game 10 years later - let's call it "Switch?" (Pricing Game B). Pricing Game B makes it to air. Person B had no knowledge of Person A or Person A's pitch. Person A claims to several hundred people that he created Pricing Game B.

As an outcome person, Chris, you're merely interested in the fact that Pricing Game B is on the air. As a progression person, I have a serious problem with Person A claiming that he created Pricing Game B.

If this has any connection at all to watching other people win money on TV, it's lost on me.

[chris319]

Every producer and programmer you or I have ever talked with (Goodson himself, among them) have regaled us with endless tales of how playalong is the most important factor in crafting a hit.

Therein lies the crux of this question: We both know that Concentration didn't last umpteen years because of the thrill of watching someone win a Michael C. Fina silver service. There was a game to be played (as there is with Jeopardy!). Jeopardy! didn't start getting PR and ink until Ken approached and surpassed the $1 million mark. In the mid-fifties it could legitimately be argued that pure novelty accounted in large part for the popularity of $64,000 Question and Twenty One. The same argument could be made again in 1999 with WWTBAM, which has its roots in $64,000 Question and which was being introduced to a new generation 44 years later.

The examples you cited, sports and Fear Factor, as well as hundreds of game shows over the decades, give the viewer something to watch even if there is nothing at stake. You know this from participating in more office run-thrus than you probably care to count. Ever play Password in your living room with (shock and awe) NO money at stake? This gets to the question of why people watch (playalong) but not to the question of why they enjoy Jeopardy! most of the time but really, really enjoy it even more when the five-appearance rule is liften and a guy approaches and surpasses $1 million.

Now here's a question within a question: If viewers are drawn by the vicarious thrill of watching other people win big money as you say, why didn't Million Dollar Chance of a Lifetime or every state lottery program in existence take off? Why isn't there interest in a Million-Dollar Mindreaders?

[adamjk]

The reason why, is because although the chance for huge wins can initally draw people to a show, that novelty wears out quick. The gameplay has to be there for the people to stay. If it's not there, then the show will not take off. That simple.

[chris319]

Imagine watching a DSW on TPiR and Bob says, "You win both showcases!", and all that happens is that the total flashes on the podium and she's happy, and that's it.

Then, watch a DSW where Bob says, "You win both showcases!", and there are bells going off, clanging, whooping, and the words "DOUBLE SHOWCASE WINNER" flashing on the screen. That's hella cool. That's what makes it so exciting.

Interesting that you should bring this up. Notice that there is no more hoopla over Ken's winnings than usual, and Jeopardy! is fairly austere in heralding the winnings of its returning champion to begin with. The graphic showing his total is on screen for less than five seconds each time and there is no other fanfare.

[adamjk]

That's because it has always been that way. It would seem out of place if they did otherwise. Price has always had the bells and whistles with the DSW's. People expect to hear the bells when someone wins both SC's, on Price just as people expect to see the classy stuff on Jeopardy. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Jimmy Owen]

I think in the case of Ken Jennings, history is being made and we all want to witness something no one has ever done before.  The next guy to do it won't be as remembered.