Mr. Richards, thank you first and foremost for such a generous offer. My first thing to note is that what you have done with 3 Strikes, reverting it back to 3 strikes in the bag was a wonderful decision.
I ask this: Why were the number of winning combinations on the pricing game Pay the Rent increased so much, leading to the eventual winner?
As a follow up, what is the history of Pay the Rent; in other words, who came up with the concept? We've had rumors that it was Mr. Sandler or yourself, but I would like to get the information straight from the man himself.
In addition, the show seems to be rebounding rather strongly in the Nielsen ratings after a small dip a few years ago, when you first started with Price. Congratulations on such a feat, however, what do you believe is the reason behind this? Is it celebrity guests, having "bigger and better" prizes, a household name host like Drew Carey, your contestants, a combination of these factors, or something else entirely?
With due respect, Mr. Richards, I feel many classic elements of the show I once had were gone. I respect your differing philosophy, but this is mine Many, granted, are unavoidable, due to increased advertisement time, leaving less time for the show itself. My issues stem primarily from the lack of spontaneity of contestants, as many seem to fill a central casting role of hyperactive, out of control players. In addition, this goes to car pricing games: Mr. Carey should avoid always sending the players to the car if it is won. I don't mind so much players going to the car, as much as it is Drew directing them to go there, as if scripted.
In addition, Mr. Richards, while again unavoidable in part due to time, I feel too much time is spent editing out of games. I respect what little time you you have to work with, but it feels edits are becoming more choppy, therefore notable, and making a lesser product on screen for viewers. In addition, I think this is because, with due respect, you have the habit (which I cannot judge, I do not work at S33) of hiring a new director seemingly every season. In the end, as a result, they cannot get a grasp of how to direct the show, nor do they have the adequate time to learn how, both in what the show demands, and of what you demand, as an executive director.
While not as major, or as notable to the common viewer as the traditional edit, another chief concern of mine, that I am certainly not alone in, is the lack of classic cues. I realize you believe they are not in pristine condition, and while this may be the case, what is the harm in playing one of the classics once a week, or thereabouts? It would take very little to change this policy, and you would certainly please me personally as a fan if you could do this. Having grown up on Price yourself, I am sure you understand what cues go with which games; in the traditional manner, and if you are not sure, you have the library of shows to reference, at your disposal, if need be.
Arguably my greatest issue with Price as it is today, stems from the lack of focus on contestants. Mr. Carey and the larger than life prizes seem to be the primary focus, rather than the contestants, their stories (abbreviated as these may be these days), and truly, their feelings about their magical experience on The Price is Right. While there is a place for Mr. Carey as host, his job is to host not only the show but host the players around to their game, and introduce them as if a house guest, hence the term host. Right now, Mr. Carey believes he is not only the host, but also the special guest of honor, not the one-time contestant.
Last but not least, the prizes. I think there is usefulness in the designer prize, and the occasional large trip. The former moreso to attract the 18-34 female demographic that is so valued, and I think this is actually a brilliant strategy. I might suggest doing this a tiny bit less, as not to overuse its concept, but I consider this a very good thing what you have done, it works quite in the ratings, similar to how male model Mr. Rob Wilson has, to serve the same purpose. The latter, the large trips, these have me worried, in the sense that the budget cannot afford them, as many times they are not sponsored. Why not follow the lead of Wheel of Fortune, and have many trips sponsored; Wheel does so with Sandals. This would allow there to be more winners on the program, and there would be less costs associated with doing so, let alone the trips that are declined. This is why I actually really liked the $40,000+ trip you gave away last season in Cliffhangers; it was mostly sponsored, and did not impact the budget too much (which is a concern I have, but many others have explained it well enough, to the point where I feel it would be unnecessary to do so).
Thank you for your time to do this Mr. Richards; it is invaluable to me, and hopefully the entire website's community; best of luck on your continued works on Price and Let's Make a Deal.
