Another Season of Losses?

[coulsonc]

Yes, we are only four shows into the new season, but the same pattern of forced losses seems to in play this year. Out of 24 games, only 6 have been won (25%). At this rate, we'll go lower than last year's unprecedented 34% win record.

Here's what I don't understand. If the issue is a lower prize budget than we've had in the past, why not give away cheaper prizes but still allow for at least 50% wins, as we had in the past? The prevailing idea now seems to be that it's more important to offer lots of flashy, unusual, and expensive prizes than allow for a reasonable number of wins.

For example, Most Expensive doesn't need three prizes costing more than $3000. I'd rather seem them give away a day bed, dinette set, and home gym than offer a bunch of expensive prizes set up to be lost. Who cares whether the bedroom furniture prize in Ciff Hangers is $13,000 or $6,000? Is it more entertaining to offer a Mac Book, iPad, iPhone with calling plan, and iPod as opposed to a simple laptop?

Thoughts?

[PriceRox]

It seems (from the PriceisRight.com videos) that Mike Richards thinks offering really expensive prizes is the path to success.  The behind the scenes Pay the Rent video shows Adam Sandler mentioning that Mike wanted a game that would pay off someone's mortgage.

While that's a great theory, the show still has the same prize budget so if someone actually would win prizes that large, it's going to completely affect all other games.

It's pretty obvious that they are trying to attract viewers by offering snobby prizes and flashy cars.  The problem is, just seeing those prizes alone doesn't provide entertainment at all.  I can google the prizes.

I want to see an excited contestant winning!  That's entertainment!

[ilovetv]

They might be offering more usual and expensive prizes that they THINK are flashy, but I don't care for them. I would much rather they offer more oridinairy prizes (which would be less expensive) that would be won. Anyway,  I like the "ordinairy" prizes.  I like dinette sets and home gyms!


I don't watch that much anymore (I catch one or two shows every two weeks) but I did watch this week. 

And yesterday was depressing...only one game won out of 12!

I think, in the long run, this will be detrimental in the effort to increase their viewers. They need to have more winners.

[PriceFanArmadillo]

It seems (from the PriceisRight.com videos) that Mike Richards thinks offering really expensive prizes is the path to success.  The behind the scenes Pay the Rent video shows Adam Sandler mentioning that Mike wanted a game that would pay off someone's mortgage.

Then why is it called Pay the Rent and not Pay the Mortgage?

[PimpinJC]

Having more expensive prizes has a double negative effect.  Not only does it result in less prizes being won, but it results in more taxes being paid by the contestant.  Sure, you might feel better in the moment winning a $15,000 trip over a $5,000 one.  But if you can't pay the taxes on the $15,000, what good does it do?  I would much rather see smaller prizes that contestants win than larger prizes that are lost.

The one reason why I've stopped watching is because I see nothing but losses when I watch.

[promchf]

If I wanted to see this much losing I would watch the MDS's during sweeps. Holy cow, these shows are horrible. I have almost stopped watching the entire show(s) on CBS.com and only view the Pricing Game clips. I compare watching the Pricing Game clips to watching a movie trailer for a comedy. They show all the best (funny) parts in the trailer and you get ripped off when you spend the $$ to watch the entire movie. I will usually watch the entire show if I see something posted on G-R.net. I agree with PimpinJC, I would like to see smaller prizes offered if it resulted with more winners.

[leafsfan17]

With only one perfect show in the past two seasons, I'd have to say that the game setups have certainly become more evil, so it wouldn't surprise me if we had more losses this year.

[coulsonc]

And the excitement factor is further diminished by knowing that if the prize is great, the contestant is going to get punked. The reveal of the car during Lucky $even used to be thrilling. Now when I see the car rolling onto the stage, all I can think is, here we go... $19,191.

Or take the showcases from the premiere. The unusual prizes showcase (with the Mustang) was priced so unreasonably high that it would be impossible to overbid... but the showcase with the Porsche was priced even *more* ridiculously high, such that no contestant would guess that it was worth $70,000+. A $25,000 entertainment wall unit? Please. So the Porsche was never going to be won. The producers knew that.

Maybe they're assuming that the casual TPIR viewer won't notice or care. They've probably done focus groups, audience research, etc. So maybe it's only we LFAT who are put off by it.

It's pretty obvious that they are trying to attract viewers by offering snobby prizes and flashy cars.  The problem is, just seeing those prizes alone doesn't provide entertainment at all.  I can google the prizes.

[imhomerjay]

How many viewers--and that's ultimately what brings in the money after all--will be sitting at home worrying about taxes that players might have to pay?  Likely not a top-of-mind consideration (if it enters their mind at all).  Nor are they sitting around counting win/loss stats (let alone seriously debating the notion that someone who walks away from Plinko with let's say 10 or 20 grand is actually a "loser").   This is a shorter attention span world overall, and that's why there is a business case for using flashier potential prizes that may not be won as often compared to grandfather clocks and the like that are given away more regularly.  

[Wayoshi]

^But honestly, how many viewers would say that they enjoy watching big prizes be lost more than smaller prizes being won more?

[Axl]

Nor are they sitting around counting win/loss stats (let alone seriously debating the notion that someone who walks away from Plinko with let's say 10 or 20 grand is actually a "loser").

They're not keeping track of the stats, but I think they can quickly develop a sense of "Geez, it seems like every time I turn on this show, it's just one loss after another."  Eventually it feels like you're watching Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.

[promchf]

And the excitement factor is further diminished by knowing that if the prize is great, the contestant is going to get punked. The reveal of the car during Lucky $even used to be thrilling. Now when I see the car rolling onto the stage, all I can think is, here we go... $19,191.

Excellent Point Coulsonc. I remember the good 'ol days when the cars on Lucky $even cost something like $18,375 and the cars they use now (ala $19,191) were given away for games like Spelling Bee, Let'em Roll or any game where you didn't need to guess the price of the car. Memories......

[PriceFanArmadillo]

Or take the showcases from the premiere. The unusual prizes showcase (with the Mustang) was priced so unreasonably high that it would be impossible to overbid... but the showcase with the Porsche was priced even *more* ridiculously high, such that no contestant would guess that it was worth $70,000+. A $25,000 entertainment wall unit? Please. So the Porsche was never going to be won. The producers knew that.

This has been standard operating procedure for years.  For all I know, it's one of the few things the current staff actually did learn from Roger.