What's with all the negativity?

[CBSpromoman]

How about a classic TPiR (with a classic game show host like Barker and announcer like Fields) AND an updated, contemporary flashy TPiR (with "comedian" Drew and his cronies) - both on CBS?  The classic can have the current time slot and Drew's version can have the 2pm slot.

But for the fact that the 2pm slot isn't available: CBS is quite pleased with THE TALK thus far.

[imhomerjay]

Yes, cancellation would be a good indication that the audience was dwindling.

To be clear, its audience, like those of most network TV shows as a whole, was shrinking.  That, alone, necessitates budgetary considerations. 

TPiR was not cancelled - it's audience was aging.  So what?  Don't we "over 50" people deserve programs we want to watch? 

It’s not the issue.  The issue is business, pure and simple.  There’s not enough money being spent by marketers to reach that audience in the kind of volume it takes to justify an hour of broadcast network TV. 

The overall population is aging and people over 50 are spending a great deal more money today than people who were obver 50 thirty-five years ago.  Our money is vital to the economy too. 

Few people argue the spending isn’t vital (though thanks to the recession, some trends about the aging boomer population and its spending patterns have changed remarkably; how long-term a trend that is remains to be seen).  In fact, there are voices arguing loudly out there that the focus on the 54-and-under demos to the exclusion of those over 55 is missing an opportunity.  But that argument is far from settled, and won’t be for a long, long time.  Meantime, Price, and CBS, need to operate in the here and now.   

What’s more, it isn’t about simply spending money, it’s about a propensity to purchase the products being advertised.  Research still shows the older audience is more set in its purchase patterns and preferences than the younger groups.  It’s hard to convince a marketer to spend money on ads that aren’t going to be effective (i.e., the over-50 crowd obviously needs to buy groceries, but if they’re not open to changing brands of products—as a whole, we’re not talking anecdotal examples here—then there’s little point in spending the money to tell them brand A peanut butter is somehow better than brand B).

How about a classic TPiR (with a classic game show host like Barker and announcer like Fields) AND an updated, contemporary flashy TPiR (with "comedian" Drew and his cronies) - both on CBS?  The classic can have the current time slot and Drew's version can have the 2pm slot.

Never going to happen. 

We had two TPiR's on in the 90's with Doug Davidson's Price and Barker's Price.  Put both versions on today and let's see which one wins the ratings war! 

“The ratings war” is about the bottom line—the ad revenue.  A substantially smaller audience of 25-54 year olds trumps a larger group of 55+.  That may sound harsh, that may sound unfair—and it may be unfair, but life isn’t fair in all cases, and this is the reality. 

[brtsimpson142]

How about a classic TPiR (with a classic game show host like Barker and announcer like Fields) AND an updated, contemporary flashy TPiR (with "comedian" Drew and his cronies) - both on CBS?  The classic can have the current time slot and Drew's version can have the 2pm slot.

Never going to happen.

They already tried something like this.  It was called TNPiR'94.  It was a definite failure.

Only difference was that "classic" Price was on weekdays at 11.  The "contemporary" TPiR was on weeknights at 7.

[imhomerjay]

"Not going to happen" was a reference to the idea of one network running both versions on its schedule.  I completely understand 1994, and also that a "classic" version in syndication a decade earlier fared little better.   

I know it's often popular to say 1994's syndicated version failed because it was different, but there's a wide range of factors to consider in a reasoned analysis: time periods (7 pm was hardly universal, and even if it was, being against a syndicated powerhouse doesn't help), station lineup, the OJ factor, the existing version still being on the air, and a period that just wasn't kind to a lot of syndicated game shows.

[SteveGavazzi]

Everything that's changed since S35, and I mean every little thing, whether it's the set, the music, the foreign cars, the expensive trips, the fewer winners, the designer crap, the contestants, the lineups ... Everything they changed was changed because they HAD to.

* Don't get me wrong, though; they should've kept Roger...

I hope you realize as you write this that had the latter item occurred, the former would not have.

[imhomerjay]

In which case there wouldn't be so much as a chance of a longer-term future.  Naturally for some, that's a desired outcome, but not for all. 

[Dakotakid2007]

May I also add - who is home at 11:00am to watch TPiR on a regular basis?  Older people!  Younger people are working.  Men are working; women are working - or if home - watching The View.  College age kids are in classes - morning is prime time for learning.  It seems to be that the "powers that be" are trying to attract an audience that is no where near a TV at that hour.  Older, retired people are!   

[imhomerjay]

That's a stereotype, but not an accurate one.  If the women are home watching The View (and they are), then they're also available to watch Price is Right.  Early evidence suggests they're also watching The Talk and many other shows.   

No one is going to confuse the available audience in daytime with primetime, but factor in stay-at-home parents (including the still small but growing stay-at-home dads), shift/non-traditional workers and the like, and you have a pool of tens of millions of people that marketers want to reach. Other shows started to get them, while Price lost them--holding onto its "original" (using the term loosely, not literally from day one) viewership without repleneshing the bottom end of the age range. 

And again, it's not the popular phantom boogeyman of the "powers that be" at a given show.  It's the reality of the ad marketplace.  Neither Drew Carey nor Mike Richards nor [insert other scapegoat of choice here] created the situation.  They are, however, tasked with trying to deal with it.

[Mallory16]

Because perhaps had they paid some attention to the demographic issues earlier, they might not have reached the point they did.

Do more younger people watch the show now than they did when Bob was hosting?

And both demonstrate that making updates to look current while keeping the core structure can work

Neither one demonstrates that the changes are the reason people keep watching, though.  Do the changes help their ratings, or do the changes not really matter much?  Is it even possible to answer that?

The show is rushed? That's not in Fremantle's hands, but CBS's. I'm not sure Bob would be THAT good, bring THAT much interaction, with 38 minutes instead of 42-45.

Bob had less time in his later years.  He was far better at making the best of that time, though.  As well, a lot of episodes nowadays are played with a lot of overly quick games, and Drew still doesn't really take advantage of that extra time from the quickies being played.

Bob would be much better able to take advantage of that shorter time he did have to use than Drew can.

Current staff has also one more problem: the economy is not the same since 2008. Fremantle had to deal with the economical crisis, and maybe that's what Dobkowitz was unable to.

Nope.  Roger was very expert at keeping the show within its budget.  The current staff is far more slipshod about how to handle that budget.

Plinko: the new reveal is way better than the old one. They brightened up the main set and it looks better, even if the other things (light spots, winnings display) were too much.

*blinks*  It is?  Granted, it's not an issue with the new staff so much as it is one with Bart, but the classic pre-Season 31 reveal was far more enjoyable.

If they would've kept the same set, same music, same American cars, regular trips, the same game setups, the same type of contestants and the same Dob-esque* lineups ... If they would've kept all that without Bob, the show would've sunk faster than the Titanic.

You might have some points there, but some of that just seems nonsensical to me.

The old music was (mostly) more melodic.  Am I so far out of the loop that I'm unaware that the new generation doesn't like hummable music?  The old music wasn't hurting the show.

Granted, some of it wasn't, like the old cheap car cue, despite how warm and fuzzy it makes me feel... maybe I could understand it more if they looked at each individual piece of music, instead of assuming anything old is automatically crap.

The same game setups?  You mean winnable game setups?  I really doubt making the games harder is making people want to watch more.  At best, viewers don't care.  At worst, they don't like it.

I sincerly doubt most viewers care whether the lineups are Dob-esque or not.

Why would trading more enjoyable contestants for less enjoyable ones make people want to watch the show more?  What was wrong with the old kind of contestants?  It seems like, even if they were to change everything, it would still make logical sense to keep the same kinds of contestants as in the past.

But starting from the premise that it's not possible to please everyone, you try to do what's going to do the best for your business, and in Wheel's case, those decisions have paid off.

Do we actually know whether or not those decisions made any difference at all?

[Axl]

As a culture, we have  a sort of collective ADD—the shiny, cool prize that the 25-54 audience responds to, even if lost, will serve a show better in the long run than trotting out what their parents or grandparents might have ooohhh-ed and aaahhh-ed over forty years ago.

I agree with everything you've said... except this one.  I think all the losing really is hurting the show, and having fancier prizes doesn't make up for it.  There's basically no fancier prize than a million dollars, but after a while, both WWTBAM and Deal or No Deal became desperate trying make somebody win the damn thing.

There's one thing that doesn't get discussed much (because we really don't have any way of getting the answer), but I wonder about whether there has been any significant change in ad rates.  Compare Bob-era ads to Drew-era ads, and you'll actually see a fair number of desirable advertisers now whose presence doesn't scream, "OLD AUDIENCE AHEAD!"  If that has increased their CPM enough, it's possible they're actually making more money now.  Doubtful, I guess, but that's a side of the business that most armchair programmers pay no attention to.

[imhomerjay]

Do more younger people watch the show now than they did when Bob was hosting?

Bob hosting in 1972 or 35 years later?  It was a continued shift over time.  By the end, it would be hard to do much worse in the better demos.  Even if not a single additional “younger” (sub 55) viewer comes on board, it means they failed to stop the ship from sinking, not that they opened up the hole in the first place…but at least an effort was made. 

If I didn’t get my cholesterol treated, I was almost assuredly heading for a heart attack.  Have I guaranteed that it won’t happen?  Nope.  But I’ve at least given that possibility a better shot by taking action.

Neither one demonstrates that the changes are the reason people keep watching, though.  Do the changes help their ratings, or do the changes not really matter much?  Is it even possible to answer that?

Total viewership is a meaningless beauty contest.  It can make for press release fodder, but it means zero to the savvy people doing the advertising buying.  So whether we see upticks or downticks in the total number, it’s not telling the whole story.  The big picture is much more about the demos today. 

And just as importantly, people were already stopping watching (whether by choice or “natural causes”) as Bob was in the later years of his hosting tenure.  A third or more of the audience was already gone from the show’s peak, and the bigger problem with that—since all network daytime saw erosion—is that the losses were most heavily skewed in the sellable demos.   

There's basically no fancier prize than a million dollars, but after a while, both WWTBAM and Deal or No Deal became desperate trying make somebody win the damn thing.

Millionaire’s stunt last season didn’t seem to hurt or help them; the ratings were up a bit during the tournament period, and equal to up overall in most weeks of the season.  They didn’t see a significant dip before the tournament was introduced, either.  This season, they’re actually generally up nicely in most weeks with the new format. 

Deal may have just reached the end of its natural life here.   Picking random numbers may just not get you the kind of longevity of a solid trivia or other game in which you have to demonstrate some kind of skill (be it pricing, solving puzzles or figuring out how people answer a goofy survey question).  They instituted the stunts most heavily once the trouble had started, which is a somewhat different scenario.

[Axl]

Millionaire’s stunt last season didn’t seem to hurt or help them; the ratings were up a bit during the tournament period, and equal to up overall in most weeks of the season.  They didn’t see a significant dip before the tournament was introduced, either.  This season, they’re actually generally up nicely in most weeks with the new format.

That's not what I'm talking about.  During the original Regis run, ABC realized that people were starting to get tired of waiting for the climax, so they made an effort to ease up on some of the questions to make a big win more likely.  It was subtle, but significant enough that their prize insurer actually sued the show for making things easier and putting them at higher risk of a payout.  That was before the syndicated version was even a twinkle in Michael Davies' eye.

[imhomerjay]

My sincere apologies.  I was thinking of the ongoing version as a regular viewer.  They way overextended the primetime show, in a time period when "nearly daily" viewing isn't what viewers expect on an ongoing basis.  Making the questions allegedly easier was an unsuccessful effort to reverse the slide, but they key point is the slide had begun.  It goes back to the issue that you may not always succeed in your effort to reverse a bad situation, but allowing the trend lines to continue without making some kind of adjustment most certainly won't result in them magically improving on their own.

[FrenchFan]

Do more younger people watch the show now than they did when Bob was hosting?

Neither one demonstrates that the changes are the reason people keep watching, though.  Do the changes help their ratings, or do the changes not really matter much?  Is it even possible to answer that?

Bob had less time in his later years.  He was far better at making the best of that time, though.  As well, a lot of episodes nowadays are played with a lot of overly quick games, and Drew still doesn't really take advantage of that extra time from the quickies being played. Bob would be much better able to take advantage of that shorter time he did have to use than Drew can.

Nope.  Roger was very expert at keeping the show within its budget.  The current staff is far more slipshod about how to handle that budget.

*blinks*  It is?  Granted, it's not an issue with the new staff so much as it is one with Bart, but the classic pre-Season 31 reveal was far more enjoyable.

The old music was (mostly) more melodic.  Am I so far out of the loop that I'm unaware that the new generation doesn't like hummable music?  The old music wasn't hurting the show. Granted, some of it wasn't, like the old cheap car cue, despite how warm and fuzzy it makes me feel... maybe I could understand it more if they looked at each individual piece of music, instead of assuming anything old is automatically crap. The same game setups?  You mean winnable game setups?  I really doubt making the games harder is making people want to watch more.  At best, viewers don't care.  At worst, they don't like it. I sincerly doubt most viewers care whether the lineups are Dob-esque or not. Why would trading more enjoyable contestants for less enjoyable ones make people want to watch the show more?  What was wrong with the old kind of contestants?  It seems like, even if they were to change everything, it would still make logical sense to keep the same kinds of contestants as in the past.

Do we actually know whether or not those decisions made any difference at all?

1. No. Actually, there is less. But if it's basically the same audience, the audience is not going to be younger. They have to attract younger viewers. They have not managed yet, but they try, and they HAVE to try.

2. imhomerjay tried to demonstrate that. Most viewers don't care about what we say here. They have to communicate about those changes. They do. If they have any effect, we don't really know.

3. Give Bob 38 minutes and see what he can do.

4. The crisis began in 2008, and Roger got fired in 2008. How he would handle this extra fact will never be known.

5. Plinko sign? I'm not going to say "far more", but you get a point.

6. You exactly said: viewers don't care. Having less winners doesn't change anything in ratings (as it's not too obvious), and it costs less money. Why would they avoid that? For everything else (cues, contestants), I agree.

On a side note, everyone says "if the show offers less, we could have more winners". TPIR is a show which cannot offer less without being considered cheap (see the end of Season 38). And this is one of the rare things a casual viewer can note.

It goes back to the issue that you may not always succeed in your effort to reverse a bad situation, but allowing the trend lines to continue without making some kind of adjustment most certainly won't result in them magically improving on their own.

One more point.

[theworstboy]

They took a format that was still working perfectly well after 36 years and decided it needed to be fixed.

Forgive the impudence I show by asking this, but... hadn't they been "fixing" things all along? Even the fundamental of three games, a showdown, three games, a showdown, and a showcase was itself a "fix". The same could be said for de-browning Contestants' Row, de-blacking Bob's hair...